YOUNES et al v. 7-ELEVEN, INC. et al
Filing
61
MEMORANDUM ORDER granting #54 Motion for Reconsideration; the Sodhi Action is hereby consolidated with the Younes and Naik Actions for discovery and case management purposes only in front of the Honorable Joel Schneider. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 2/14/14. (js)
<![CDATA[
[Docket No. 54]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
YOUNES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil No. 13-3500 RMB/JS
v.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
7-ELEVEN, INC.,
Defendant.
NAIK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil No. 13-4578 RMB/JS
v.
7-ELEVEN, INC.,
Defendant.
7-ELEVEN, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 13-3715 MAS/DEA
v.
SODHI, et al.,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon 7-Eleven, Inc.’s
(“7-Eleven”) Motion for Reconsideration [Civil Action No. 13-
3500, Docket No. 54], of this Court’s Order [Civil Action No. 133715, Docket No. 87], denying 7-Eleven’s request to consolidate
7-Eleven, Inc., v. Sodhi et al., Civil Action No. 13-3715 (the
“Sodhi Action”) with the already consolidated Younes and Naik
matters, Civil Action Nos. 13-3500 and 13-4578, respectively (the
“Consolidated Action”).1
In the District of New Jersey, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)
governs motions for reconsideration.
Bowers v. Nat'l. Collegiate
Athletics Ass'n, 130 F. Supp. 2d 610, 612 (D.N.J. 2001). 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)
(internal citation omitted).
Reconsideration is to be granted
only sparingly. United States v. Jones, 158 F.R.D. 309, 314
(D.N.J. 1994).
Third Circuit jurisprudence dictates that a Rule
7.1(i) motion may be granted only if: (1) there has been an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) evidence not
available when the Court issued the subject order has become
available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law
or fact to prevent manifest injustice. Max’s Seafood Café v.
1
These matters were previously consolidated for case
management and discovery purposes only.
2
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing North River
Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reins. Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)).
A review of 7-Eleven’s motion reveals that reconsideration
is warranted in this matter as there is new evidence in favor of
consolidation that was not available when this Court issued its
prior decision.
For example, Judge Shipp has since denied the
motions that were previously pending in the Sodhi Action and the
parties have subsequently submitted a proposed case management
order in Sodhi with deadlines similar to the Consolidated Action.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that when
actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending
before the court, the court may consolidate the actions or issue
any order to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
42(a).
Fed. R. Civ. P.
In exercising its discretion to consolidate matters, a
court should weigh the interests of judicial economy against the
potential for delays, expense, confusion, or prejudice.
The
Court has considered these factors and finds, based on the
current posture of all three above-captioned matters, that
consolidation is appropriate for case management and discovery
purposes only before the Honorable Joel Schneider.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS on this 14th day of February 2014,
3
ORDERED that 7-Eleven’s Motion for Reconsideration is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Sodhi Action is hereby consolidated with
the Younes and Naik Actions for discovery and case management
purposes only in front of the Honorable Joel Schneider.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENEE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
