Opinion
Civ. No. 96-2710 (DRD).
January 20, 1999
Mr. Glenn D. Morris, Jersey City, NJ, Pro se Plaintiff.
Thomas F. McGuane, Esq., Carpenter, Bennett Morrissey, Newark, NJ, Attorneys for Defendant.
David A. Lebowitz, Esq., Kauff, McClain McGuire, New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendant.
OPINION
Plaintiff, Glenn D. Morris ("Morris"), instituted this Title VII action against his former employer for racial discrimination and retaliation arising out of his alleged demotion and eventual layoff. On December 3, 1998, the Court issued an opinion and order granting defendant Scott Printing Corporation's ("Scott") motion for summary judgment. Morris has moved for reconsideration of that order. The motion is to be disposed of on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
A detailed account of the facts and procedural history of this case can be found in the Court's December 3, 1998, Opinion which is the subject of this motion. Scott moved for summary judgment arguing that Morris has adduced no evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to his claims of racial discrimination and retaliation. Scott also argued that Morris had failed to produce enough evidence to meet his burden of proof under Title VII. The Court granted Scott's motion for summary judgment, holding that Morris did in fact fail to produce the requisite amount of proof to meet his burden under Title VII.
II. DISCUSSION
Morris has moved for reconsideration pursuant to L.Civ.R. 7.1(g) and argues that the Court erred by not exhaustively discussing all of the materials he submitted in opposition to Scott's motion for summary judgment. Morris contends that had the Court discussed the materials in greater detail, the Court would have concluded differently. Scott opposes Morris's motion and argues that reconsideration is not proper because Morris fails to identify any facts or legal authority overlooked by the Court in its initial opinion.
A. Standard for Reconsideration
A motion for reconsideration will only succeed where dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions of law were presented to the Court but not considered. Pittston Co. v. Sedgwick James of N.Y., Inc., 971 F. Supp. 915, 918, 919 (D.N.J. 1997); Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 623, 633, 634 (D.N.J. 1996); Hatco Corp. v. W.R. Grace Co., 849 F. Supp. 987, 990 (D.N.J. 1994) (citing Pelham v. United States, 661 F. Supp. 1063, 1065 (D.N.J. 1987)). The purpose of the motion is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. In re Sharps Run Assocs., L.P., 157 B.R. 766, 785 (D.N.J. 1993).
Local Civil Rule 7.1(g), which governs this issue, limits the motion to facts and law "overlooked" in the original motion.United States v. Jones, 158 F.R.D. 309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994). The only proper ground for granting such a motion is that the matters or decisions overlooked, if considered by the court, might reasonably have altered the result reached. Starr v. JCI Data Processing, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 633, 635 (D.N.J. 1991);Maldonado v. Lucca, 636 F. Supp. 621, 630 (D.N.J. 1986).
The standard of review for a motion for rearguement is high and relief is granted very sparingly. NL Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996);Hatco, 849 F. Supp. at 990; accord Jones, 158 F.R.D. at 314; Bakari v. Beyer, 870 F. Supp. 85, 88 (D.N.J. 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 82 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 1996); Maldonado, 636 F. Supp. at 630.
A party must show more than a disagreement with the court's decision. Hatco, 849 F. Supp. at 990 (citing Panna v. Firstrust Sav. Bank, 760 F. Supp. 432, 435 (D.N.J. 1991)). A mere recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden. Id. (citing Carteret Sav. Bank, F.A. v. Shushan, 721 F. Supp. 705, 709 (D.N.J. 1989)).
B. Morris's Motion for Reconsideration
Morris moves for reconsideration, maintaining that the Court failed to "exhaustively" consider the materials which he submitted in opposition to Scott's motion for summary judgment. Morris argues that had the Court exhaustively reviewed and considered these materials, Scott's motion would have been denied and this case would have proceeded to trial. In support of his proposition, Morris has submitted a lengthy affidavit that directs the Court's attention to the portions of his opposition materials which he believes would lead a reasonable person to decide in his favor.
Morris's material submitted in support of the instant motion do not, however, allege that the Court overlooked any facts or controlling legal authority when it made its decision. As previously stated, in order for a party to prevail in a motion for reconsideration, dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions of law must have been presented to the court and not considered. See Pittston Co., 971 F. Supp. at 918, 919. That is not the case here. Morris's motion for reconsideration is nothing more than a disagreement with the Court's decision. His affidavit and letter brief in support of the motion are merely a recapitulation of the cases and arguments that the Court considered when rendering the original decision. See Hatco, 849 F. Supp. at 990. Accordingly, Morris's motion must be denied.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Morris's motion for reconsideration will be denied. An appropriate order will issue.
ORDER
Plaintiff, Glenn D. Morris ("Plaintiff"), having moved for reconsideration pursuant to L.Civ.R. 7.1(g); and the Court having considered all papers submitted; and for other good cause shown; and in accordance with this Court's opinion of even date;IT IS this ____ day of January, 1999, hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration be and hereby is DENIED.