govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-1_16-cv-00711-3

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
EDWARD SILIPENA, et al.,   : Hon. Joseph H. Rodriguez 
 
  Plaintiffs,    : Civil Action No. 16-711 
 
v.      : MEMORANDUM OPINION 
 & ORDER 
       :           
AMERICAN PULVERIZER CO., et al.,  
       : 
  Defendants.    
       : 
 
 This matter is before the Court on motion of Plaintiffs for 
Reconsideration, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(i), of the Court’s March 19, 
2019 Order denying Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended 
Complaint.  Upon considering the arguments set forth by the motion, the 
Court will deny reconsideration. 
“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest 
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”  Harsco Corp. 
v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985).  It must be stressed, 
however, that reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy” and is granted 
“sparingly.”  NL Indus., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F. Supp. 
513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996).   
To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must 
show “more than a disagreement” with the decision it would like 
Case 1:16-cv-00711-ESK-AMD     Document 322     Filed 03/31/21     Page 1 of 4 PageID:
<pageID>
2 
 
reconsidered.  Anders v. FPA Corp., 164 F.R.D. 383, 387 (D.N.J. 1995).  
Instead, there must be some “dispositive factual matters or controlling 
decisions of law” that were presented to the Court, but not considered.  
Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 215 F. Supp. 2d 482, 507 
(D.N.J. 2002); United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 
345 (D.N.J. 1999).  Thus, a “mere recapitulation of the cases and arguments 
considered by the court before rendering the original decision” does not 
warrant a grant of reconsideration. Carteret Sav. Bank, F.A. v. Shushan, 721 
F. Supp. 705, 706 (D.N.J. 1989), modified, 919 F.2d 225 (3d Cir. 1990); 
accord In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation, 432 F. Supp. 2d 461, 463 (D.N.J. 
2006); S.C. v. Deptford Twp. Bd. of Educ., 248 F. Supp. 2d 368, 381 (D.N.J. 
2003).   
A motion for reconsideration will likewise fail if the moving party 
merely raises arguments or presents evidence that could have been raised 
or presented before the original decision was reached.  NL Indus., 935 F. 
Supp. at 516.  Thus, the moving party must actually present “something 
new or something overlooked by the court in rendering the earlier 
decision.”  Khair v. Campbell Soup Co., 893 F. Supp. 316, 337 (D.N.J. 1995) 
(citing Harsco Corp., 779 F.2d at 909).  The word “overlooked” is the 
operative term and has been consistently interpreted as referring only to 
Case 1:16-cv-00711-ESK-AMD     Document 322     Filed 03/31/21     Page 2 of 4 PageID:
<pageID>
3 
 
facts and legal arguments that might reasonably have resulted in a different 
conclusion had they been considered.  Summerfield v. Equifax, 264 F.R.D. 
133, 145 (D.N.J. 2009) (citing United States v. DeLaurentis, 83 F. Supp. 2d 
455, 474 n.2 (D.N.J. 2000)).  
Plaintiffs have not presented the Court with an intervening change in 
the controlling law or a clear error of law that will result in manifest 
injustice. Plaintiffs argue that “new evidence” exists which relates to 
Defendants’ “admissions” that the damages that flow from the second fire 
have been part of this litigation since this matter’s inception.  In support, 
Plaintiffs point to Defendants’ request for an index related to Plaintiffs 
production of more than 30,000 pages and Defendants’ proposed index 
categories of those documents as evidence that Defendants acquiesced to 
the inclusion of the second fire as part of the litigation and, therefore, the 
amendment is warranted.  
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ “new evidence” is not new.  First, 
Defendants claim that the timing of the index came Plaintiffs filed their 
Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.  Second, even if the 
timing is not persuasive, the fact that Defendants sought information 
regarding the second fire is neither an admission nor sufficient to grant  
Case 1:16-cv-00711-ESK-AMD     Document 322     Filed 03/31/21     Page 3 of 4 PageID:
<pageID>
4 
 
reconsideration.  Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ characterization 
of this evidence as new is belied by the arguments advanced in support of 
their motion to amend. Specifically, Plaintiffs are improperly recapitulating 
arguments made in their underlying briefs. (See Stansfield Certification 
attached to the omnibus reply brief, Docket No. 93, at ¶5-7). 
 The March 19, 2019 Order found Plaintiffs’ attempt to incorporate the 
second fire into their basis for liability against Defendants was problematic 
and troubling because the fires at Plaintiffs’ facility have always been 
known to Plaintiffs.  The Court found that the Defendants’ information 
gathering on the second fire is not a triggering event for Plaintiffs’ 
realization of the existence of second fire and insufficient to grant leave to 
amend. The Court rejected the amendment on that basis as well as the 
prejudice it presents to the Defendants.  
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ have failed to present “something 
new.”  Khair, 893 F. Supp. at 337. Accordingly,  
IT IS ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2021 that Plaintiffs’ motion 
for reconsideration [151] of this Court’s March 19, 2019 Memorandum 
Opinion and Order is hereby DENIED.   
      
        s/ Joseph H. Rodriguez   
       JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ 
       United States District Judge 
Case 1:16-cv-00711-ESK-AMD     Document 322     Filed 03/31/21     Page 4 of 4 PageID:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight