IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

BEZALEL GROSSBERGER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT SALDUTTI,

 Defendant.

HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Civil No. 11-0941 (JBS/AMD)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Bezalel

Grossberger’s motion seeking an order “to re-instate [the] case”

against Defendant Robert Saldutti. [Docket Item 9]. On October

5, 2011, the Court dismissed this case based on the doctrine of

res judicata. See Grossberger v. Saldutti, Civ. No. 11-00941,

2011 WL 4729025 (D.N.J. Oct. 5, 2011). The Court finds as

follows:

1. On December 7, 2010, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se,

filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Camden

County against Defendant demanding $3,000.00 and alleging

unauthorized harassment in an attempt to obtain personal

information from Plaintiff without full disclosure. Grossberger,

2011 WL 4729025, at *1. On December 22, 2010, Judge Lee B.

Laskin, J.S.C. issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s state court

complaint with prejudice. Id. 

1

Case 1:11-cv-00941-JBS-AMD Document 11 Filed 04/12/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 89
2. On February 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in

this Court [Docket Item 1], alleging that Defendant was harassing

Plaintiff and misrepresenting his identity and purpose when

calling him for personal information, and infringed upon

Plaintiff’s rights by pursuing the collection of debt in

violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692, the Fair Debt Collection Practices

Act (“FDCPA”). Compl. ¶¶ 2-4. Defendant subsequently filed the

motion to dismiss based on, among other things, res judicata. 

[Docket Item 5]. 

3. In its October 5, 2011 Opinion [Docket Item 7], the

Court determined that (1) “[t]he state court’s order . . . was a

final judgment on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims”; (2) “[t]he

identity and alignment of the parties to the state court action

[were] the same in” the state court case and the instant case;

and (3) “Plaintiff’s claims in this case [grew] ‘out of the same

transaction or occurrence as the claim[s]’ litigated in the state

court action.” Grossberger, 2011 WL 4729025, at *3 (quoting

Watkins v. Resorts Int’l Hotel & Casino, Inc., 124 N.J. 398, 412

(1991)). Therefore, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims based

on the doctrine of res judicata. Id. at *4.

4. Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant motion to

reinstate his case. [Docket Item 9]. Plaintiff provides no

brief in support of his motion. Plaintiff merely submits a bare

Notice of Motion without any accompanying statement of why the

2

Case 1:11-cv-00941-JBS-AMD Document 11 Filed 04/12/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 90
motion should be granted. His notice reads as follows:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Bezalel Grossberger will move before

the Honorable Judge Jerome B. Simandle, U.S.D.J. on

November 21st 2011 for an Order to re-instate case.

In support of my motion, I will rely on the attached

brief (if necessary).

Pl’s Notice of Mot. at 1.

5. Shortly thereafter, Defendant filed opposition to the

motion, construing the motion as one seeking reconsideration and

arguing that Plaintiff’s claims are the same as those previously

raised. [Docket Item 10].

6. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion as procedurally

defective, as it contains no supporting brief or statement in

lieu of brief, as required under Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1),(4). 

See U.S. Small Business Admin. v. Klein, Civ. No. 08-1964, 2009

WL 1457119 at *2 (D.N.J. May 26, 2009) (holding motion lacking

brief or statement in lieu as procedurally defective); Developers

Surety & Indemnity, Co. v. NDK General Contractors, Inc., Civ.

No. 06-0086, 2007 WL 542381, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2007).

7. Alternatively, were the Court to consider the motion on

the merits and construe it as a motion for reconsideration, as

Defendant does, the Court would likewise deny the motion. 

Generally, a motion for reconsideration in this District is

treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 59(e), or as a motion for relief from judgment or order under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp.,

3

Case 1:11-cv-00941-JBS-AMD Document 11 Filed 04/12/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 91
88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999). In the District of New

Jersey, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) governs motions for

reconsideration. Bowers v. NCAA, 130 F. Supp. 2d 610, 612

(D.N.J. 2001). 

8. “[R]econsideration is an extraordinary remedy, that is

granted very sparingly.” Brackett v. Ashcroft, Civ. No. 03–3988,

2003 WL 22303078, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct.7, 2003) (internal quotations

omitted). The “purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to

correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly

discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906,

909 (3d Cir. 1985). There are three grounds upon which a court

may grant a motion for reconsideration: “(1) an intervening

change in controlling law has occurred; (2) evidence not

previously available has become available; or (3) it is necessary

to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” 

Carmichael v. Everson, Civ. No. 03–4787, 2004 WL 1587894, at *1

(D.N.J. May 21, 2004). Mere disagreement with a decision “should

be dealt with in the normal appellate process, not on a motion

for reargument under [the] Local Rule.” Florham Park Chevron,

Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J.

1988).

9. Plaintiff does not argue in his motion that the Court

applied the wrong legal standard, that there has been an

intervening change in the law or that the Court overlooked any

4

Case 1:11-cv-00941-JBS-AMD Document 11 Filed 04/12/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 92
factual matters that were properly before the Court on the motion

to dismiss. Rather, Plaintiff submits a Notice of Motion with no

supporting brief or accompanying statement as to why a brief is

not necessary. Thus, the Court is unable to ascertain any errors

contained in its Order dismissing this action. It would appear

that Plaintiff simply disagrees with this Court’s ruling, but he

may not use a motion for reconsideration to re-litigate a matter

that has been thoroughly adjudicated by this Court.

10. For the reasons explained above, the Court will deny

Plaintiff’s motion. The accompanying Order will be entered.

April 12, 2012 s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

Date JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Chief U.S. District Judge

5

Case 1:11-cv-00941-JBS-AMD Document 11 Filed 04/12/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 93