WONG v. RWJ BARNABAS HEALTH et al, No. 2:2020cv05510 - Document 76 (D.N.J. 2024)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 4/17/2024. (mxw, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
WONG v. RWJ BARNABAS HEALTH et al Doc. 76 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY SUSAN WONG, Civil Action No. 20-5510 (SDW)(AME) Plaintiff, OPINION v. CLARA MAASS MEDICAL CENTER, RWJBARNABAS HEALTH, JOHN DOES 1-10, and XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10 April 17, 2024 Defendants. WIGENTON, District Judge. THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon Plaintiff Susan Wong’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration, (D.E. 64), filed in connection with Judge Kevin McNulty’s September 7, 2023 Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (D.E. 47)1; WHEREAS a party moving for reconsideration of an order of this Court must file its motion within fourteen (14) days after the entry of that order and set “forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the . . . Judge has overlooked.” L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). Motions for reconsideration are “extremely limited procedural vehicle(s)” that are to be granted “very sparingly.” Clark v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 940 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (D.N.J. 2013) (quotation marks omitted). A motion for reconsideration may only be granted if the moving party 1 This case was reassigned to this Court on December 6, 2023. Dockets.Justia.com shows “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [reached its original decision]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and italics omitted). Such a motion is “not a vehicle for a litigant to raise new arguments.” CPS MedManagement LLC v. Bergen Reg’l Med. Ctr., L.P., 940 F. Supp. 2d 141, 168 (D.N.J. 2013); and WHEREAS Plaintiff untimely filed her Motion for Reconsideration on September 22, 2023. In addition, she fails to identify any intervening change in the relevant law, new evidence that was unavailable at the time this Court entered its Opinion and Order, or an error of fact or law that, if left uncorrected, would result in manifest injustice; therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. An appropriate order follows. /s/ Susan D. Wigenton SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J. Orig: Clerk cc: André M. Espinosa, U.S.M.J. Parties 2
]]>
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.
