Opinion
Civil Action 22-6057 (SDW) (JSA)
01-04-2023
COURTNEY GREEN, Plaintiff, v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, LG ELECTRONICS INC., Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
WHEREAS OPINION
SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.
THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon pro se Plaintiff Courtney Green's (“Plaintiff”) “Motion to vacate order of dismissal and reinstate” (D.E. 14) filed in connection with this Court's December 14, 2022 Whereas Opinion and Order (“Order”) sua sponte dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with prejudice and granting Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (D.E. 11, 12); and
WHEREAS this Court deems Plaintiff's “Motion to vacate order of dismiss[al] and reinstate,” which requests that this Court “reconsider [its] decision,” as a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's December 14, 2022 Order; and
WHEREAS a party moving for reconsideration of an order of this Court must file its motion within fourteen (14) days after the entry of that order and set “forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the . . . Judge has overlooked.” L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). Motions for reconsideration are “extremely limited procedural vehicle(s)” which are to be granted “very sparingly.” Clark v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 940 F.Supp.2d 186, 189 (D.N.J. 2013) (quotation marks omitted). They may only be granted if the moving party shows “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [reached its original decision]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and italics omitted). They are “not a vehicle for a litigant to raise new arguments.” CPS Med Management LLC v. Bergen Reg'l Med. Ctr., L.P., 940 F.Supp.2d 141, 168 (D.N.J. 2013); and
WHEREAS Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration was filed on December 29, 2022, one day after the 14-day filing deadline. Given the holiday, this Court will treat the motion as if it were timely. However, Plaintiff's motion fails to identify any intervening change in the relevant law, new evidence that was unavailable at the time this Court entered its Order, or an error of fact or law that, if left uncorrected, would result in manifest injustice; therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration will be DENIED. An appropriate order follows.