THOMPSON et al v. HARRAH'S ATLANTIC CITY HOLDING, INC. et al, No. 1:2014cv02397 - Document 190 (D.N.J. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Denying Defendant's 173 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's 3/20/2018 Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez on 2/14/2019. (dmr)

Download PDF
THOMPSON et al v. HARRAH'S ATLANTIC CITY HOLDING, INC. et al Doc. 190 U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT D ISTRICT OF N EW JERSEY _________________ ____ HOWARD THOMPSON and : DEBORAH THOMPSON, h/ w : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : HARRAH’S ATLANTIC CITY : HOLDING, INC., et. al. : : Defendants. : _______________________ : H o n . Jo s e p h H . Ro d rigu e z Civil Action No. 14-2397 Me m o ran d u m Op in io n an d Ord e r This m atter is before the Court on a m otion of Defendant Harrah’s Atlantic City Operating Com pany’s m otion pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(i) for reconsideration of the Court’s March 29, 20 18 Opinion and Order partially denying Defendant’s m otion to for sum m ary judgm ent. Upon considering the argum ents set forth by the m otion, the Court will deny reconsideration. “The purpose of a m otion for reconsideration is to correct m anifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 90 6, 90 9 (3d Cir. 1985). It m ust be stressed, however, that reconsideration is “an extraordinary rem edy” and is granted “sparingly.” NL Indus., Inc. v. Com m ercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J . 1996). To succeed on a m otion for reconsideration, the m oving party m ust show “m ore than a disagreem ent” with the decision it would like reconsidered. Anders v. FPA Corp., 164 F.R.D. 383, 387 (D.N.J . 1995). Instead, there m ust be som e “dispositive factual m atters or controlling decisions of law” that were presented to the Court, but not considered. Interfaith Cm ty. Org. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 215 F. Supp. 2d 482, 50 7 (D.N.J . 20 0 2); United States v. Com paction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J . 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1999). Thus, a “m ere recapitulation of the cases and argum ents 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. 70 5, 70 6 (D.N.J . 1989), m odified, 919 F.2d 225 (3d Cir. 1990 ); accord In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation, 432 F. Supp. 2d 461, 463 (D.N.J . 20 0 6); S.C. v. Deptford Twp. Bd. of Educ., 248 F. Supp. 2d 368, 381 (D.N.J . 20 0 3). A m otion for reconsideration will likewise fail if the m oving party m erely raises argum ents 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 m oving party m ust actually present “som ething new or som ething overlooked by the court in rendering the earlier decision.” Khair v. Cam pbell Soup Co., 893 F. Supp. 316, 337 (D.N.J . 1995) (citing Harsco Corp., 779 F.2d at 90 9). The word “overlooked” is the operative term and has been consistently interpreted as referring only to facts and legal argum ents that m ight reasonably have resulted in a different conclusion had they been considered. Sum m erfield v. Equifax, 264 F.R.D. 133, 145 (D.N.J . 20 0 9) (citing United States v. DeLaurentis, 83 F. Supp. 2d 455, 474 n.2 (D.N.J . 20 0 0 )). Defendants have not presented the Court with an intervening change in the controlling law, evidence not previously available, or a clear error of law that will result in m anifest injustice. Defendants have argued that the Court overlooked applicable negligence principles and that the Court failed to address Defendant’s request for sum m ary judgm ent as to Plaintiffs’ lack of m edical expert opinion. The Court’s opinion sets forth the applicable law and reasoning for potential liability against Defendant Harrah’s. As a result, the negligence principles underscoring Harrah’s potential liability were not overlooked when the Court determ ined that Count III had been sufficiently pled in its opinion and as addressed during oral argum ent. Harrah’s also claim s that the Court failed to address the fact that it never received the m edical expert report of Plaintiff’s nam ed expert, Dr. Albert Anaim . During oral 2 argum ent, Plaintiff’s counsel averred that the report was sent to the Defendant’s well before it was attached to the Plaintiff’s opposition to the sum m ary judgm ent m otion and that the Defendants never m entioned the absence of the report when they noticed the expert’s deposition. The Court accepted Plaintiff’s counsel’s averm ent during oral argum ent and believed the issue was m oot because counsel has proof she sent the expert report to defendants’ counsel. To the extent that was not m ade clear during oral argum ent on the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff has offered sufficient proof to survive sum m ary judgm ent on the issue of causation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED this 14th day of February, 20 19 that Defendant’s m otion for reconsideration [173] of this Court’s March 29, 20 18 Opinion and Order is hereby DENIED. s/ J oseph H. Rodriguez J oseph H. Rodriguez, United States District J udge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.