TAYLOR v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, No. 1:2020cv01848 - Document 33 (D.N.J. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER Denying 32 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; Directing the Clerk to re-close this case. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 7/5/2022. (amv,n.m.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
TAYLOR v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION Doc. 33 Case 1:20-cv-01848-NLH-MJS Document 33 Filed 07/05/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 230 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY VINCENT L. TAYLOR, Civ. No. 1:20-cv-01848-NLH Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, also known as DXC TECHNOLOGY, Defendant. APPEARANCES: VINCENT L. TAYLOR P.O. BOX 2131 CINNAMINSON, NJ 08077 Plaintiff appearing pro se LISA J. RODRIGUEZ SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP WOODLAND FALLS CORPORATE PARK 220 LAKE DRIVE EAST SUITE 200 CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002 On behalf of Defendant HILLMAN, District Judge WHEREAS, this Court rendered an Opinion and Order on June 6, 2022 (ECF Nos. 30, 31) dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice; and WHEREAS, this matter comes before the Court pursuant to a Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-01848-NLH-MJS Document 33 Filed 07/05/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 231 letter requesting oral argument by Plaintiff received on June 30, 2022 (ECF No. 32); and WHEREAS, the Court construing the letter submitted by pro se Plaintiff liberally as a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b), (“Rule 60(b)”); and WHEREAS, Rule 60(b) is applicable to final judgments, Dinnerstein v. Burlington County, No. 13-5598, 2015 WL 224428, at *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 14, 2015); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Rule 60(b), the Court has discretion to provide relief in final judgments for equitable reasons; and WHEREAS, given the facts of this case as discussed extensively in the Court’s prior Opinions (ECF Nos. 22, 30), Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration will be liberally construed to fall under Rule 60(b)(6), see Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(6), see also Pierce Assoc. Inc. v. Nemours Found., 865 F.2d 530, 548 (3d Cir. 1988) (describing that a motion for relief under Rule 60(b) is under the sound discretion of the trial court); and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), the Court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for any other reason that justifies relief; and WHEREAS, Under Rule 60(b)(6), the court must consider whether extraordinary circumstances justify reopening the judgment, Smith v. Kroesen, No. 10-5723, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2 Case 1:20-cv-01848-NLH-MJS Document 33 Filed 07/05/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 232 132171, at *5-6 (D.N.J. Sept. 27, 2016); and WHEREAS, motions pursuant to Rule 60(b) are to be granted sparingly, Jones v. Lagana, No. 12-5823, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101488, at *2-3 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2016) (“[a] court may grant a Rule 60(b) motion only in extraordinary circumstances, and a Rule 60(b) motion is not appropriate to reargue issues that the court has already considered and decided.”); and WHEREAS, although Plaintiff requested oral argument, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) provides that the Court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs, without oral hearings; and WHEREAS, Local Civil Rule 78.1(b) notes that all motions will be decided on the papers unless a party requests oral argument and the request is granted by the Judge or Magistrate Judge, or if the Court sua sponte directs for oral arguments to be held; and WHEREAS, the Court is not required to hold oral argument and may decide in its discretion whether oral argument is necessary or will occur on a pending motion, Morris v. United States, No 12-2926, 2015 WL 4171355, at *2 (D.N.J. Jul. 9, 2015); and WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s letter, (ECF No. 32), notes Plaintiff’s desire to “clarify some comments and discuss . . . why a Settlement for Relief or Summary Judgment should be 3 Case 1:20-cv-01848-NLH-MJS Document 33 Filed 07/05/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 233 considered before dismissing the case,” but, as noted above, this Court rendered an Opinion and Order on June 6, 2022 (ECF Nos. 30, 31) dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint because fatal deficiencies in Plaintiff’s claims remained despite amendment and the Court having accepted all of Plaintiff’s wellpleaded allegations as true and in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff; and WHEREAS, in the same Opinion the Court found that equitable tolling could not save Plaintiff’s untimely Title VII claim and untimely NJLAD claims; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s letter (ECF No. 32) claims that Defendants’ alleged harms have caused Plaintiff to “prematurely to file in 2022 early retirement, Social Security and cashed another Pension this year,” and while these alleged harms are meaningful to Plaintiff, this new information does not meet the exigencies required by Rule 60(b)(6) to warrant the extraordinary relief of re-opening this case; and WHEREAS, the Court, in its discretion, declines to hold oral argument on these issues; Accordingly, IT IS on this __5th___ day of July, 2022 ORDERED that the Clerk shall re-open this matter to resolve Plaintiff’s Motion as set forth in this Order; and it is further 4 Case 1:20-cv-01848-NLH-MJS Document 33 Filed 07/05/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 234 ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 32) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall re-close the file and make a new and separate docket entry reading "CIVIL CASE TERMINATED." _s/Noel L. Hillman NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J. At Camden, New Jersey 5
]]>
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.
