govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-2_13-cv-00650-12

NOT
FOR
PUBLICATION
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
DISTRICT
OF
NEW
JERSEY
ROBERT
SWIFT,
Civil
Action
No.:
13-650
(JLL)
Plaintiff,
OPINION
V.RAMESH
PANDEY,
et
al.,
Defendants.
LINARES,
Chief
District
Judge.
This
matter
comes
before
the
Court
by
way
of
pro
se
Plaintiff
Robert
Swift’s
Motion
for
Reconsideration
of
this
Court’s
August
31,
2017
Order
Denying
Plaintiffs
Second
Motion
for
Partial
Summary
Judgment.
(ECF
No.
224).
Defendants
Rarnesh
Pandey
and
Bliuwan
Pandey
have
Opposed
Plaintiffs
Motion
(ECF
No.
225),
to
which
Plaintiff
has
replied.
(ECF
No.
226).
The
Court
decides
this
matter
without
oral
argument
pursuant
to
Rule
78
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure.
For
the
reasons
set
forth
below,
the
Court
denies
Plaintiffs
Motion
for
Partial
Summary
Judgment.
I.
BACKGROUND
The
Court
presumes
the
parties
are
familiar
with
the
factual
background
and
the
allegations
asserted
in
Plaintiffs
Original
and
Amended
Complaints
(ECF
Nos.
1,
17,
28,
85)
based
on
the
parties’
own
involvement
in
this
case
as
well
as
this
Court’s
Opinions
dated
August
10,
2016,
March
27,
2017,
and
August
31,
2017.
(ECF
Nos.
165,
197,
222).
Accordingly,
the
Court
will
set
forth
the
relevant
procedural
background.
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 229     Filed 10/12/17     Page 1 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>
AfternumerousamendmentstohisComplaint,PlaintiffsThirdAmendedComplaint
becometheoperativepleadingherein.(ECFNo.85).Therein,Plaintiffassertedthefollowing
causesofaction:I)“QuantumMertlitby[Defendant]RarneshPandey;”2)“QuantttmPvferztitby
[Defendant]BhuwanPandey;”3)“QuantttrnMeruitby[Defendant]XechernIndia;”4)“Unjust
Enrichmentby[Defendant]RarneshPandey;”5)“UnjustEnrichmentby[Defendant]Bhuwan;”
and6)“UnjustErn-ichrnentby[Defendant]XechernIndia.”(Seegeneral/vid.).Afteraprotracted
litigation,PlaintiffmadehisfirstMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentastoallhisunjust
enrichmentclaims,aswellastwounpledclaims(equitableandpromissoryestoppel).(ECFNo.
174).ThisCourtdeniedsaidMotioninitsentirety.(ECFNos.196,197).TheCourtpreliminarily
heldthatPlaintiffsMotionforclaimsofequitableandpromissoryestoppelwasprocedurally
improper,becausesaidclaimswerenotapartofhisThirdAmendedComplaint.(ECfNo.197at
5-6).TheCourtfurtherfoundthatPlaintiffwasnotentitledtosummaryjudgmentastohisunjust
enrichmentclaimsbecausethereweregenuineissuesofmaterialfactpresent.(Id.).
Thereafter,PlaintifffiledhisSecondMotionforPartialSummaryJudgment.(ECFNo.
216).Therein,Plaintiffonlysoughtjudgmentastohisunjustenrichmentclaimsagainst
DefendantsRarneshPandeyandBhuwanPandey.(Id.at10).OnAugust31,2017,thisCourt
onceagaindeniedPlaintiffsMotion.(ECfNos.222,223).Specifically,“[t]heCourt,onceagain,
denie[d]PlaintiffsMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentastohisunjustenrichmentclaims,as
itsuffer[ed]fromthesameinfirmitiesthathispreviousMotionsufferedfrom.”(ECFNo.222at
5).Indeed,PlaintiffsSecondMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentwasnearlyidenticaltohis
FirstMotionforPartialSummaryJudgment.(CompareECfNo.197,withECFNo.222).“As
wasthecasewithPlaintiffspriorMotionforPartialSummaryJudgment,therecord[did]not
2
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 229     Filed 10/12/17     Page 2 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>
containanyfactsorevidencetoshowDefendantsreceivedanybenefit”(ECFNo.222at6).This
Courtwentontohold,again,that
evenifthetransferofassetsandthepurportedloanfromXechern
InternationaltoXechernIndiacouldsomehowbeconstruedasabenefitto
Defendants,Plaintiffs[Second]MotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentas
tohisunjustenrichmentclaimsstillfaiI[ed]...[because]neithertherecord
not[PlaintiffsStatementofUndisputedMaterialFacts]show[ed]that
Plaintiffevenexpectedremunerationincomectionwiththesetransactions,
whichisanessentialelementofaclaimforunjustentichrnent.
(Id.)(emphasisinoriginal).Hence,theCourtdeniedPlaintiffsSecondMotionforPartial
SummaryJudgment.(Id.at7).Thereafter,PlaintifftimelyfiledtheinstantMotionfor
Reconsideration.(ECFNo.224).’
II.LEGALSTANDARD
“[R]econsiderationisanextraordinaryremedythatisgranted‘verysparingly.”L.Civ.R.
7.1(1)crnt.6(d)(quotingBrackettv.Asheroft,No.03-3988,2003WL22303078,*2(D.N.J.Oct.
7,2003))(emphasisadded);seealsofellenzv.Lombardhn’estmentCoip.,400F.Supp.2d681,
683(D.N.J.2005).Amotionforreconsideration“maynotbeusedtore-litigateoldmatters,nor
toraiseargumentsorpresentevidencethatcouldhavebeenraisedpriortotheentryofjudgrnent.”
P.SchoenfeldAssetMgrnt.,LLCv.CendantCoip.,161F.Supp.2d349,352(D.N.J.2001).To
prevailonamotionforreconsideration,themovingpartymust“set[]forthconciselythematter
orcontrollingdecisionswhichthepartybelievestheJudgeorMagistrateJudgehasoverlooked.”
L.Civ.R.7.1(i).
TheCourtnotesthatPlaintiffsMotionforReconsiderationisentitled“MotionforPartialSummaryJudgment”on
theElectronicDocket.(SeeECFNo.224).However,areviewoftheMotionitselfmakesitclearthatPlaintiffis
movingforreconsiderationunderRules54(b)and60(b)(6)ofthefederalRulesofCivilProcedure.(Id.at1).
3
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 229     Filed 10/12/17     Page 3 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>
TheCourtwillreconsiderapriororderonlywhereadifferentoutcomeisjustifiedby:“(I)
aninterveningchangeincontrollinglaw;(2)theavailabilityofnewevidencenotavailable
previously;or(3)theneedtocorrectaclearerroroflaworpreventmanifestinjustice.”ARiver
Ins.Co.1’.CIGNAReinsuranceCo.,52F.3d1194,1218(3dCir.1995)(internalquotations
omitted).Acourtcommitsclearerroroflaw“onlyiftherecordcannotsupportthefindingsthat
ledtothatruling.”ABSBrokerageSen’s.v.Fensonfin.Sen’s.,Inc.,No.09-4590,2010WL
3257992,at*6(D.N.J.Aug.16,2010)(citingUnitedStatesv.Grape,549F.3d591,603—04(3d
Cir.2008)).“Thus,apartymust...demonstratethat(1)theholdingsonwhichitbasesitsrequest
werewithoutsupportintherecord,or(2)wouldresultin‘manifestinjustice’ifnotaddressed.”
Id.“Mere‘disagreementwiththeCourt’sdecision’doesnotsuffice.”Id.(quotingP.$choenfeld,
161F.Supp.2dat353).Moreover,whentheassertionisthattheCourtoverlookedsomething,
theCourtmusthaveoverlookedsomedispositivefactualorlegalmatterthatwaspresentedtoit.
SeeL.Civ.R.7.1(1).
III.ANALYSIS
TheCourtconcludesthatPlaintiffisnotentitledtoreconsiderationofthisCourt’sAugust
31,2017Order.Indeed,PlaintiffsMotionforReconsiderationissimplyarewordedversionof
bothofhispriorMotionsforPartialSummaryJudgment.Plaintiffs“INTRODUCTION”isa
simplerecitationofthefactsstatedinbothpriorMotions.(ECFNo.224at2)(emphasisin
original).Specifically,Plaintiffnotesthatheraised“S7.1millionforXecherninpartinreliance
onXechemowning66-2/3%interestinXechem(India)Pvt.Ltd.”andthathe“subsequently
purchasedallright,title,andinteresttoallassetsofXechemandXechern,Inc.”ataBankruptcy
Auction.(Id.).Plaintiffthengoesontostatethathehasstandingtobringthisactionbecausehe
4
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 229     Filed 10/12/17     Page 4 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>
isthesoleownerofXechem,afactthatisnotcontestedbyanyDefendant.(Id.at3).Allofthese
factswerepresentinPlaintiffsThirdAmendedComplaintaswellasbothpriorMotionsforPartial
SummaryJudgment.Accordingly,PlaintiffpointstonofactthatthisCourtoverlookedin
renderingitsAugust31,2017Opinion.
Moreover,Plaintiffpointstonochangeincontrollinglaw.Asamatteroffact,Plaintiffs
Motionfailstoincludeasinglecitationtocaselaworstatute.Regardless,Plaintiffs
“ARGUMENT”alsoisidenticaltothatadvancedinbothpriorMotionsforPartialSummary
Judgment;argumentsthisCourthasexplicitlyrejected.(Id.)(emphasisadded).Plaintiff,once
again,discusses“undisputed”factsregardingthetransferofassets,thepurportedloanbetweenthe
domesticandforeignXechernentities,andhow,itishispersonalbelief,thatDefendantswere
unjustlyenriched.(Id.at3-4).However,nowherewithinPlaintiffsMotionforReconsideration,
orPlaintiffsreply,doesPlaintiffexplainhisconnectiontosubjecttransactionsandhowhe
expectedremunerationforatransactionthattookplacemanyyearsbeforehisinvolvementwith,
andpotentiallyknowledgeof,theDefendantentities.
AsthisCourthasheld,PlaintiffsMotionsforPartialSummaryJudgmentfailedbecause
PlaintiffdidnotshowthisCourtthatthereweregenuineissuesofmaterialfact.Moreover,as
discussedintheCourt’spriorOpinions,eveniftheCourtfoundthattherewerenogenuineissues
ofmaterialfact,PlaintiffstillfailedtoshowthisCourthewasentitledtojudgmentasamatterof
law.PlaintiffsMotionforReconsiderationfailstoconvincetheCourtotherwise,asPlaintiffcites
tonofactsoverlookedbytheCourtnordoeshecitetoanyinterveningchangeincontrollinglaw.
Rather,PlaintiffsMotionfocusesonthesamefactsthatthisCourtpreviouslyhadbeforeitand
5
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 229     Filed 10/12/17     Page 5 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>
reliesonnolawwhatsoever.Accordingly,theCourtfindsthatPlaintiffhasfailedtocarryhis
burdentosucceedonaMotionforReconsideration.
IV.CONCLUSION
Fortheaforementionedreasons,PlaintiffsMotionforReconsiderationisherebydenied.
AnappropriateOrderaccompaniesthisOpinion.
DATED:October7
LINARES
UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
6
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 229     Filed 10/12/17     Page 6 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight