Opinion
Civil Action No. 98-5408 (NHP).
July 27, 1999
Michael M. DiCicco, Esq., BATHGATE, WEGENER WOLF, P.C. Lakewood, N.J., Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Steven R. Klein, Esq., COLE, SCHOTZ, BERNSTEIN, MEISEL, FORMAN, P.A. Hackensack, N.J., James C. Donnelly, Jr., Esq., Charles B. Straus, III, Esq., MIRICK, O'CONNELL, DE MALLIE LOUGEE, LLP Worcester, MA, Attorneys for Defendant, Performance Polymers, Inc.
LETTER OPINION ORIGINAL ON FILE WITH CLERK OF THE COURT
Dear Counsel:
This matter comes before the Court on the motion by defendant Performance Polymers, Inc. to amend and supplement findings of fact and conclusions of law and to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(b), 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 7.1(g). This matter was resolved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons stated herein, defendant Performance Polymers, Inc.'s Motion to Amend and Supplement Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and to Alter or Amend the Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
DISCUSSION
Motions made pursuant to Rules 52(b) and 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are "closely related" and are often filed simultaneously. See United States Gypsum Company v. Schiavo Brothers, Inc., 668 F.2d 172, 179 (3d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 961 (1982).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b) provides, in pertinent part:
On a party's motion filed no later than 10 days after entry of judgment, the court may amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion may accompany a motion for a new trial under Rule 59. . .
Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(b). Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides, "Any motion to alter to amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). In the District of New Jersey, a motion made pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(g), which is often referred to as a "motion for reconsideration,"see Public Int. Research Group v. Yates Industries, 790 F. Supp. 511 n. 1 (D.N.J. 1991), is the analog to a motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). See NL Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 938 F. Supp. 248, 249 (D.N.J. 1996).
The rationales for granting a motion under Rule 52(b) and Rule 59(e)/7.1(g) are essentially the same. See National Metal Finishing Co., Inc. v. Barclaysamerican/Commercials, Inc., 899 F.2d 119, 124, n. 2 (1st Cir. 1990). Rule 52(b) "permits counsel to ask the court to correct, on the non-jury record before it, any errors of law, mistakes of fact or oversights that require correction." United States Gypsum Company v. Schiavo Brothers, Inc., 668 F.2d 172, 179 (3d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 961 (1982).
Similarly, the Advisory Committee Notes provide that Rule 59(e) was added to make clear "that the district court possesses the power. . .to alter or amend a judgment after its entry." A Rule 59(e)/7.1(g) motion for reconsideration, however, should not be used as a vehicle to reargue the issues to the Court. NL Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 938 F. Supp. 248, 249 (D.N.J. 1996). A party filing a motion for reconsideration must show more than mere disagreement with the Court's decision. See id. "[R]ecapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden." Id. (citing G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F. Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J. 1990), (citations omitted). "When a motion for reconsideration raises only a party's disagreement with a decision of the Court, that dispute `should be dealt with in the normal appellate process, not on a motion for reargument under' Rule 12(I) [presently Rule 7.1(g)]." Id. (quoting Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 159, 163 (D.N.J. 1988)).
In this matter, PPI timely filed the subject motion on July 7, 1999. It is patently clear, however, that the underlying basis for PPI's motion is its disagreement with this Court's decision. PPI has not asked the Court to correct any errors of law, mistakes of fact or oversights that require correction or amendment of the Judgment. Instead, PPI simply rehashes the identical arguments proffered both at the time of trial and as contained in the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, particularly with regard to the post-November 18th price supports. PPI may be assured that in considering its decision, this Court thoroughly reviewed the entire trial record. Although PPI may find this Court's conclusions difficult to embrace, the matters alleged by PPI to have been overlooked were not disregarded but, instead, were found to be unpersuasive.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned, this Court's original Judgment was "subject to any and all other credits and debits which are not the subject of this litigation, as well as, any payments which were previously made by either party with regard to the subject matter." See Letter Opinion dated June 7, 1999, page 3 n. 2. This Court has been informed by the parties via memoranda that, since the date of this Court's decision, they have entered into a Stipulation regarding the "other credits and debits which were not the subject of the litigation" and would like that figure to be incorporated into this Court's decision. Because this figure was not the subject of the litigation and serves only to clarify the amounts due and owing overall, this Court will grant the request and amend the Judgment to reflect only this Stipulation.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant Performance Polymers, Inc.'s Motion to Amend and Supplement Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and to Alter or Amend the Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
An appropriate Order and Amended Final Judgment accompanies this Letter Opinion.