Opinion
Civil Action No. 96-4061 (DRD).
March 7, 2001.
William J. Brennan, Pro Se Little Falls, New Jersey.
Jeffrey M. Daitz, Esq., David Lew, Esq., Gregory R. Begg, Esq., Peckar Abramson, A Professional Corporation, River Edge, New Jersey, Attorneys for Defendants.
O P I N I O N
After trial on plaintiff's § 1983 claim a jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against the Township of Teaneck, the Township's Manager Gary Saage, and against four employees of the Fire Department, William Norton, John Bauer, Joseph Palazzola and Robert O'Neill. Compensatory damages were awarded in the amount of $382,500. Punitive damages were awarded against the individual defendants in varying amounts totaling $490,000.
Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for other relief. The court granted the motion with respect to the four fire department employees, holding that there was insufficient evidence to suggest a verdict that plaintiff's constitutionally protected activities were a motivating factor in any actions they took with respect to plaintiff. The court granted the motion with respect to the punitive damages award against Township Manager Gary Saage. The court denied the motion with respect to compensatory damages awarded against the Township and Saage, holding that there was some evidence to support a jury verdict that plaintiff's protected activity was a motivating factor in certain employment actions that the Township and Saage took with respect to plaintiff.
The Township and Saage now move i) for judgment on the ground that the evidence does not support the verdict against them; ii) for a new trial and iii) for a remittitur. Defendants' motion is nothing more than a motion for reargument or reconsideration of matters that were or should have been raised in their earlier motion.
Motions to reargue in this district are governed by Local Rule 7.1(g). On a motion for reargument, the primary determination is whether "dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions of law" were overlooked by the court. Pelham v. United States, 661 F. Supp. 1063, 1065 (D.N.J. 1987); Local Civil Rule 7.1(g). A motion for reconsideration will only succeed where dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions of law were presented to the Court but not considered, since the purpose of the motion is to correct manifest errors of law or fact. See Pittston Co. v. Sedgwick James of N.Y., Inc.; 971 F. Supp. 915, 918-19 (D.N.J. 1997); In re Sharps Run Assocs., 157 B.R. 766, 785 (D.N.J. 1993). Accordingly, such relief is granted very sparingly. See NL Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996).
On a motion for reargument, the primary determination is whether "dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions of law" were overlooked by the court. Pelham v. United States, 661 F. Supp. 1063, 1065 (D.N.J. 1987); Local Civil Rule 7.1(g). In those instances where the facts or cases properly presented at the time of the motion were not overlooked, the courts of the Third Circuit have consistently denied relief. See Egloff v. New Jersey Air National Guard, 684 F. Supp. 1275 (D.N.J. 1988). "A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision." G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F. Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J. 1990). Simple disagreement with the Court's initial decision "should be dealt with in the normal appellate process, not on a motion for reargument." Florham park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 159, 163 (D.N.J. 1988).
The court dealt with defendants' basic legal and factual contentious in great detail in its opinion disposing of their previous motion. There is a limit to the number of time a court must address the same arguments. If defendants failed to raise certain requests for relief, such as remittitur, in their previous motion, so be it. They had the opportunity to do so and failed to take advantage of the opportunity. There comes a time to move on, and that time has expired in this case.
Defendants' motion will be denied in its entirety. The court will file an order implementing this opinion.