Enright v. Department of Treasury Internal Revenue SRV

Full title: ELIZABETH V. ENRIGHT and LAWRENCE ENRIGHT, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF…

Court: United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage

Date published: Oct 24, 2007

Civil No. 07-2438(RMB) (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2007)

Opinion

Civil No. 07-2438(RMB).

October 24, 2007

ORDER

RENÉE BUMB, District Judge

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon Plaintiff's request to file a motion for reconsideration out of time; and

THE COURT NOTING that on August 20, 2007, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [Docket No. 9] and a return date was set for September 21, 2007; and

THE COURT FURTHER NOTING that pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(2), Plaintiffs's response to Defendant's motion was due September 7, 2007, and Plaintiffs failed to file any response;

THE COURT FURTHER NOTING that on September 10, 2007, this Court, having not received any response from Plaintiffs in opposition to Defendant's motion, entered an Order dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [Docket No. 10];

THE COURT FURTHER NOTING that pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(i), a party wishing to file a motion for reconsideration must do so within ten (10) days of the entry of the Order; and

THE COURT FURTHER NOTING that in the instant matter, such a motion for reconsideration was due by September 24, 2007; and

THE COURT FURTHER NOTING THAT on October 5, 2007, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration out of time stating, "[t]he error occurred in my office when the original Motion return date of September 21, 2007 was diaried and the subsequent response date set by the Court was missed." [Docket No. 11]; and

THE COURT FURTHER NOTHING that an untimely motion for reconsideration may be denied for that reason alone, see T.H. K.H. v. Clinton Twp. Bd. of Ed., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40358 (D.N.J. June 16, 2006) (stating that untimeliness "alone is sufficient grounds to deny the Plaintiffs' motion"); and

THE COURT FINDING that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate good cause as to why they should be granted an extension of time to file for reconsideration, especially in light of the facts that Plaintiffs failed to file a response to Defendant's motion to dismiss and then waited 25 days from the date the Court issued the Order dismissing the case to make an application to this Court for reconsideration;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion of reconsideration out of time is DENIED.