1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

__________________ 

BRIAN SAMPSON and MARIA : 

SAMPSON, his wife, : 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 : Civil Action No. 11-1701 (ES) 

 v. : 

 : OPINION & ORDER 

GLOCK, INC., et al., : 

 : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

___________________________________ : 

SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Brian Sampson’s motion for reconsideration, (D.E. 

No. 70), and Defendant Glock, Inc.’s motion for sanctions, (D.E. No. 79). For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court denies both Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and Defendant’s motion for 

sanctions. 

I. Factual Background and Procedural History 

In its March 24, 2014 Opinion, the Court laid out the facts and procedural history giving 

rise to this matter. See Sampson v. Glock, No. 11-1701, 2014 WL 1225581 (D.N.J. Mar. 24, 2014). 

In that opinion, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment. See id. 

at *5. The Court’s Order granting summary judgment was entered on the docket on March 25, 

2014. (D.E. No. 68). 

On April 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 

March 24, 2014 decision. (D.E. No. 70). On May 5, 2014, Defendant opposed Plaintiff’s motion 

Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 83 Filed 12/16/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 2432
2

for reconsideration. (D.E. No. 77). Subsequently, on June 4, 2014, Defendant filed a motion for 

sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (D.E. No. 79). 

II. Discussion 

Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) governs motions for reconsideration in this District. A motion for 

reconsideration must “be served and filed within 14 days after the entry of the order or judgment 

on the original motion by the Judge or Magistrate Judge.” L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). Furthermore, a motion 

for reconsideration must set forth “the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the 

Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked.” Id. 

It is well-settled that “a motion for reconsideration may not be used to re-litigate old matters 

or argue new matters that could have been raised before the original decision was reached.” 

Fletcher v. St. Joseph Reg’l Med. Ctr., No. 10-1499, 2013 WL 3146879, at *3 (D.N.J. June 19, 

2013); see also Warren v. Fisher, No. 10-5343, 2013 WL 6805668, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 20, 2013) 

(“Reconsideration is not . . . an opportunity to present new legal arguments that were available but 

not advanced when the underlying motion was decided.”). Indeed, “[a] motion for reconsideration 

is ‘an extraordinary remedy to be granted very sparingly.’” Watkins v. DineEquity, Inc., No. 11-

7182, 2013 WL 396012, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2013) (quoting In re Lord Abbett Mut. Funds Fee 

Litig., 417 F. Supp. 2d 624, 627 (D.N.J. 2005)). 

In this case, there was nothing that the Court “overlooked” in granting summary judgment, 

since Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.1

 See L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). 

																																																								

1

 On August 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file his opposition to 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (D.E. No. 61). The Court granted Plaintiff’s 

request on August 21, 2013. (D.E. No. 63). Despite receiving this extension of time, Plaintiff 

allowed the deadline to elapse and did not file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment. Subsequently, on January 9, 2014, the Court sua sponte held a telephone conference 

during which Plaintiff’s counsel represented that he would submit an opposition. (D.E. No. 66). 

However, Plaintiff never filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 83 Filed 12/16/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 2433
3

All of Plaintiff’s arguments were raised for the first time on this motion for reconsideration, and 

Plaintiff has supplied no reason for failing to oppose Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s reconsideration motion suffers from a fatal flaw that warrants denial of his 

motion. See Kandil v. Yurkovic, No. 06-4701, 2013 WL 6448074, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2013) 

(“[T]here was nothing for this Court to overlook, as Plaintiff never submitted an opposition to 

defendants’ motions for summary judgment. This alone is a fetal [sic] flaw in Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Reconsideration.”); Bapu Corp. v. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc., No. 07-5938, 2010 WL 3259799, 

at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 17, 2010) (“Rule 7.1(i) . . . does not contemplate a Court looking to matters 

which were not originally presented. Thus, Plaintiffs’ arguments . . . are not properly raised for 

the first time on a motion for reconsideration.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)); 

Joyce v. Sea Isle City, No. 04-5345, 2008 WL 2875456, at *2 (D.N.J. July 23, 2008) (denying 

motion for reconsideration and noting that, while the party’s argument “may have merit,” a court 

“cannot entertain it for the first time on a motion for reconsideration”). 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is time-barred because it was filed after 

the fourteen-day deadline elapsed. See L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). This alone is grounds to deny Plaintiff’s 

motion for reconsideration. See Oriakhi v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 07-264, 2009 WL 1874199, at 

*3 (D.N.J. June 29, 2009) (“An untimely filed motion for reconsideration may be denied for that 

reason alone.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

As to Defendant’s motion for sanctions, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to 

impose sanctions in this case. See Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Cent., Inc., 580 F.3d 119, 146 

n.28 (3d Cir. 2009) (“[T]he imposition of sanctions for a Rule 11 violation is discretionary rather 

than mandatory.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 83 Filed 12/16/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 2434
4

Accordingly, IT IS on this 16th day of December 2014, 

ORDERED that, Plaintiff Brian Sampson’s motion for reconsideration, (D.E. No. 70), is 

DENIED; and it is further 

ORDERED that, Defendant Glock, Inc.’s motion for sanctions, (D.E. No. 79), is DENIED. 

 /s/ Esther Salas 

 Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 83 Filed 12/16/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 2435