Case Information
*1 Case 2:22-cv-06057-SDW-JSA Document 7 Filed 11/07/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 31 NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY COURTNEY GREEN, Civil Action No. 22-6057 (SDW) (JSA) Plaintiff,
WHEREAS OPINION v.
LG ELECTRONICS USA, November 7, 2022 LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
Defendants. THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon
pro se Plaintiff Courtney Green’s (“Plaintiff”) “Motion[s] to vacate order of dismiss[al] and reinstate” (D.E. 5, 6) filed in connection with this Court’s October 31, 2022 Whereas Opinion and Order (“Order”) sua sponte dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice and denying Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (D.E. 3, 4); and
WHEREAS this Court deems Plaintiff’s “Motion[s] to vacate order of dismiss[al] and reinstate,” which request that this Court “reconsider [its] decision,” as Motions for Reconsideration of this Court’s October 31, 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 *2 Case 2:22-cv-06057-SDW-JSA Document 7 Filed 11/07/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 32 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 MedManagement LLC v. Bergen Reg’l Med. Ctr., L.P., 940 F. Supp. 2d 141, 168 (D.N.J. 2013); and
WHEREAS Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration fail 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. Furthermore, this Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice, informing Plaintiff that he may file an amended complaint and pay the filing fee if he wishes to proceed; therefore,
Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration will be DENIED . An appropriate order follows. /s/ Susan D. Wigenton SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.
Orig: Clerk
cc: Jessica S. Allen, U.S.M.J.
Parties