SWIFT v. PANDEY et al, No. 2:2013cv00650 - Document 229 (D.N.J. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jose L. Linares on 10/12/17. (sr, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Civil Action No.: 13-650 (JLL) ROBERT SWIFT, OPINION Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff, V. RAMESH PANDEY, et al., Defendants. LINARES, Chief District Judge. This matter comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Robert Swift’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s August 31, 2017 Order Denying Plaintiffs Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 224). Defendants Rarnesh Pandey and Bliuwan Pandey have Opposed Plaintiffs Motion (ECF No. 225), to which Plaintiff has replied. (ECF No. 226). The Court decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. I. BACKGROUND The Court presumes the parties are familiar with the factual background and the allegations asserted in Plaintiffs Original and Amended Complaints (ECF Nos. 1, 17, 28, 85) based on the parties’ own involvement in this case as well as this Court’s Opinions dated August 10, 2016, March 27, 2017, and August 31, 2017. (ECF Nos. 165, 197, 222). Accordingly, the Court will set forth the relevant procedural background. After numerous amendments to his Complaint, Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint become the operative pleading herein. (ECF No. 85). Therein, Plaintiff asserted the following causes of action: I) “Quantum Mertlit by [Defendant] Rarnesh Pandey;” 2) “Quantttm Pvferztit by [Defendant] Bhuwan Pandey;” 3) “Quantttrn Meruit by [Defendant] Xechern India;” 4) “Unjust Enrichment by [Defendant] Rarnesh Pandey;” 5) “Unjust Enrichment by [Defendant] Bhuwan;” and 6) “Unjust Ern-ichrnent by [Defendant] Xechern India.” (See general/v id.). After a protracted litigation, Plaintiff made his first Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to all his unjust enrichment claims, as well as two unpled claims (equitable and promissory estoppel). (ECF No. 174). This Court denied said Motion in its entirety. (ECF Nos. 196, 197). The Court preliminarily held that Plaintiffs Motion for claims of equitable and promissory estoppel was procedurally improper, because said claims were not a part of his Third Amended Complaint. (ECf No. 197 at 5-6). The Court further found that Plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment as to his unjust enrichment claims because there were genuine issues of material fact present. (Id.). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed his Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 216). Therein, Plaintiff only sought judgment as to his unjust enrichment claims against Defendants Rarnesh Pandey and Bhuwan Pandey. (Id. at 10). On August 31, 2017, this Court once again denied Plaintiffs Motion. (ECf Nos. 222, 223). Specifically, “[t]he Court, once again, denie[d] Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to his unjust enrichment claims, as it suffer[ed] from the same infirmities that his previous Motion suffered from.” (ECF No. 222 at 5). Indeed, Plaintiffs Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was nearly identical to his First Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Compare ECf No. 197, with ECF No. 222). “As was the case with Plaintiffs prior Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the record [did] not 2 contain any facts or evidence to show Defendants received any benefit” (ECF No. 222 at 6). This Court went on to hold, again, that even if the transfer of assets and the purported loan from Xechern International to Xechern India could somehow be construed as a benefit to Defendants, Plaintiffs [Second] Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as [because] neither the record to his unjust enrichment claims still faiI[ed] not [Plaintiffs Statement of Undisputed Material Facts] show[ed] that Plaintiff even expected remuneration in comection with these transactions, which is an essential element of a claim for unjust entichrnent. ... (Id.) (emphasis in original). Summary Judgment. Hence, the Court denied Plaintiffs Second Motion for Partial Thereafter, Plaintiff timely filed the instant Motion for (Id. at 7). Reconsideration. (ECF No. 224).’ II. LEGAL STANDARD “[R]econsideration is an extraordinary remedy that is granted ‘very sparingly.” L. Civ. R. 7.1(1) crnt. 6(d) (quoting Brackett v. Asheroft, No. 03-3988, 2003 WL 22303078, *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2003)) (emphasis added); see also fellenz v. Lombard hn’estment Coip., 400 F. Supp. 2d 681, 683 (D.N.J. 2005). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to re-litigate old matters, nor to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry ofjudgrnent.” P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgrnt., LLCv. Cendant Coip., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001). To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must “set[ ] forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked.” L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). The Court notes that Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration is entitled “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” on the Electronic Docket. (See ECF No. 224). However, a review of the Motion itself makes it clear that Plaintiff is moving for reconsideration under Rules 54(b) and 60(b)(6) of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1). 3 The Court will reconsider a prior order only where a different outcome is justified by: “(I) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not available previously; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” A River Ins. Co. 1’. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted). A court commits clear error of law “only if the record cannot support the findings that led to that ruling.” ABS Brokerage Sen’s. v. Fenson fin. Sen’s., Inc., No. 09-4590, 2010 WL 3257992, at *6 (D.N.J. Aug.16, 2010) (citing United States v. Grape, 549 F.3d 591, 603—04 (3d Cir. 2008)). “Thus, a party must. . . demonstrate that (1) the holdings on which it bases its request were without support in the record, or (2) would result in ‘manifest injustice’ if not addressed.” Id. “Mere ‘disagreement with the Court’s decision’ does not suffice.” Id. (quoting P. $choenfeld, 161 F. Supp. 2d at 353). Moreover, when the assertion is that the Court overlooked something, the Court must have overlooked some dispositive factual or legal matter that was presented to it. See L. Civ. R. 7.1(1). III. ANALYSIS The Court concludes that Plaintiff is not entitled to reconsideration of this Court’s August 31, 2017 Order. Indeed, Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration is simply a reworded version of both of his prior Motions for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs “INTRODUCTION” is a simple recitation of the facts stated in both prior Motions. (ECF No. 224 at 2) (emphasis in original). Specifically, Plaintiff notes that he raised “S7.1 million for Xechern in part in reliance on Xechem owning 66-2/3% interest in Xechem (India) Pvt. Ltd.” and that he “subsequently purchased all right, title, and interest to all assets of Xechem and Xechern, Inc.” at a Bankruptcy Auction. (Id.). Plaintiff then goes on to state that he has standing to bring this action because he 4 is the sole owner of Xechem, a fact that is not contested by any Defendant. (Id. at 3). All of these facts were present in Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint as well as both prior Motions for Partial Summary Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff points to no fact that this Court overlooked in rendering its August 31, 2017 Opinion. Moreover, Plaintiff points to no change in controlling law. As a matter of fact, Plaintiffs Motion fails to include a single citation to case law or statute. Regardless, Plaintiffs “ARGUMENT” also is identical to that advanced in both prior Motions for Partial Summary Judgment; arguments this Court has explicitly rejected. (Id.) (emphasis added). Plaintiff, once again, discusses “undisputed” facts regarding the transfer of assets, the purported loan between the domestic and foreign Xechern entities, and how, it is his personal belief, that Defendants were unjustly enriched. (Id. at 3-4). However, nowhere within Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration, or Plaintiffs reply, does Plaintiff explain his connection to subject transactions and how he expected remuneration for a transaction that took place many years before his involvement with, and potentially knowledge of, the Defendant entities. As this Court has held, Plaintiffs Motions for Partial Summary Judgment failed because Plaintiff did not show this Court that there were genuine issues of material fact. Moreover, as discussed in the Court’s prior Opinions, even if the Court found that there were no genuine issues of material fact, Plaintiff still failed to show this Court he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration fails to convince the Court otherwise, as Plaintiff cites to no facts overlooked by the Court nor does he cite to any intervening change in controlling law. Rather, Plaintiffs Motion focuses on the same facts that this Court previously had before it and 5 relies on no law whatsoever. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden to succeed on a Motion for Reconsideration. IV. CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion. DATED: October 7 LINARES United States District Court 6
]]>
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.
