MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Your attorney files a pre-trial motion before the District Court, and the judge rules against you. Believing the Judge got it wrong you call your attorney and ask whether you can revisit the issue a second time. While the New Jersey Local District Court Rules allow parties to seek reconsideration of a preliminary motion decision, as the case law demonstrates it's not easy to get a Judge to change their mind. Simply because you disagree with the Judge's decision will not carry the day on a motion for reconsideration in federal court.
New Jersey Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) directs a party seeking reconsideration to file a brief "setting forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked." L. Civ. R. 7.1(i); see also Bowers v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 130 F.Supp.2d 610, 612 (D.N.J. 2001) ("The word 'overlooked' is the operative term in the Rule.") A motion for reconsideration under Rule 7.1(i) is "'an extremely limited procedural vehicle,' and requests pursuant to th[is] rule[ ] are to be granted 'sparingly.'" Langan Eng'g & Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., Civ. No. 07-2983, 2008 WL 4330048, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2008) (citing P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161 F.Supp.2d 349, 353 (D.N.J. 1992)).
To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must show at least one of the following grounds:
(1) an intervening change in the controlling law;
(2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [made its initial decision]; or
(3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.
Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
Reconsideration is not appropriate, however, where the motion only raises a party's disagreement with the Court's initial decision. Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F.Supp. 159, 163 (D.N.J. 1988); see also United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F.Supp.2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999) ("Mere disagreement with a court's decision normally should be raised through the appellate process and is inappropriate on a motion for [reconsideration]"); Schiano v. MBNA Corp., Civ. No. 05-1771, 2006 WL 3831225, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 28, 2006) ("Mere disagreement with the Court will not suffice to show that the Court overlooked relevant facts or controlling law, . . . and should be dealt with through the normal appellate process") (citations omitted).
As the above case law confirms, reconsideration is not a substitute for an appeal. Thus, a litigant must be mindful of the standard of review to be applied by the District Court in the context of a motion for reconsideration.