BALDINGER v. FERRI et al
Filing
306
MEMORANDUM and ORDER Denying the motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 2/18/2014. (kas, )
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
BRUCE BALDINGER,
Civil Action No.: 10-3122 (PGS)
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
v.
ANTONIO FERRI, et al.
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to reconsider the denial of
his prior motion to vacate the injunction. (ECF No. 303).
Defendant alleges that in deciding the prior motion, the Court did not set forth any
reasons for the denial. That is incorrect. The Court noted that the injunction against
limited activities of defendant, as well as the damage award, were appealed to and
affirmed by the Third Circuit. As such, the Court found no reason to reopen the matter.
In the present motion to reconsider, defendant argues that in a similar matter
between the same parties, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declined to impose
an injunction against defendant.
Defendant further argues that the Third Circuit did not
rule on the injunction because the injunction was not raised on appeal; hence this Court
should consider the issue.
Generally, the “extraordinary remedy” of reconsideration is “to be granted
sparingly.” A.K. Stamping Co., Inc., v. Instrument Specialties Co., Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d
627, 662 (D.N.J. 2000) (quoting NL Indus., Inc., v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F.
Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996)). Although Mr. Patisso cites to a Second Circuit case, the
Court does not know the facts of that case, nor the prudence of applying the Second
Circuit decision to trump the decision of the Third Circuit in this case. Moreover, the
Court sees no reason to intervene when the defendant failed to raise the injunction issue
on appeal.
The Defendant asserts that the injunction impedes’ defendant’s ability to
communicate with Plaintiff in conjunction with litigation. This is incorrect; the Court had
previously amended the injunction to allow communications between the parties on
matters concerning litigation. Generally, the Court may vacate an injunction if reasonable
circumstances or facts arise. Here, there are no such circumstances presented. As such,
the motion is denied.
ORDER
IT IS on this 18th day of February, 2014
ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 303) is denied.
s/Peter G. Sheridan
PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
]]>
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?
