UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

 :

PHYLLIS GIANNINI and :

JOSEPH ROBERT GIANNINI, : Civ. A. No. 11-3542 (NLH)(AMD)

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. : MEMORANDUM 

: OPINION & ORDER

BARRY W. ROSENBERG and :

and JOHN M. PALM, :

:

Defendants. :

 

APPEARANCES:

JOSEPH ROBERT GIANNINI

925 SOUTH WESTGATE AVENUE

#102

LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 

On behalf of plaintiff Phyllis Giannini and himself pro se

ROSS BEGELMAN

BEGELMAN & ORLOW, P.C.

411 ROUTE 70 EAST

SUITE 245

CHERRY HILL, NJ 08034

MATTHEW S MARRONE

GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP

901 CARNEGIE CENTER

SUITE 100

PRINCETON, NJ 08540 

On behalf of defendant Barry W. Rosenberg

BRIAN P. WILSON

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

DIVISION OF LAW

25 MARKET STREET

P.O. BOX 112

TRENTON, NJ 08625 

On behalf of defendant John M. Palm

Case 1:11-cv-03542-NLH-AMD Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 654
HILLMAN, District Judge

This matter having come before the Court on the motion of

plaintiffs for reconsideration of this Court’s Opinion and Order

granting defendants’ motion to dismiss their case ; and 1

In their complaint, plaintiffs having claimed that

defendants conspired to violate their constitutional rights in

the prosecution of civil litigation involving a home owner’s

association, and the filing of ethics complaints with the New

Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics; and

The Court having dismissed plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to

Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457

U.S. 423, 429 (1982) and Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971);

and

Plaintiffs now arguing that the Court should reverse its

decision as a “clear error of law”; and 

Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) governs a motion for

reconsideration, which provides, in relevant part, "A motion for

During the pendency of plaintiffs’ motion for 1

reconsideration, Ms. Giannini filed a motion for leave to file an

amended complaint. Even though in the Court’s prior Opinion, the

Court declined to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over Ms. Giannini’s state law claims and dismissed them, Ms.

Giannini has moved for leave to file an amended complaint to add

constitutional violation claims relating to the defendants’

actions in the state court matters. Because the Court will deny

plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and the case will remain

closed, the motion for leave to amend will be denied as moot. 

The Court takes no position about whether Ms. Giannini may

advance those claims against defendants in a new matter.

2

Case 1:11-cv-03542-NLH-AMD Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 655
reconsideration shall be served and filed within 10 business days

after the entry of the order or judgment on the original motion

by the Judge or Magistrate Judge. A brief setting forth

concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party

believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked shall be

filed with the Notice of Motion"; and

The Court recognizing that the purpose of a motion for

reconsideration “is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or

to present newly discovered evidence,” Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel.

Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999), and

that a judgment may be altered or amended only if the party

seeking reconsideration shows: (1) an intervening change in the

controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was

not available when the court granted the motion for summary

judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact

or to prevent manifest injustice, id.; and

The Court further recognizing that the motion may not be

used to re-litigate old matters or argue new matters that could

have been raised before the original decision was reached, P.

Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d

349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001), and mere disagreement with the Court will

not suffice to show that the Court overlooked relevant facts or

controlling law, United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F.

Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999), and should be dealt with through

3

Case 1:11-cv-03542-NLH-AMD Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 656
the normal appellate process, S.C. ex rel. C.C. v. Deptford Twp

Bd. of Educ., 248 F. Supp. 2d 368, 381 (D.N.J. 2003); and 

Plaintiffs arguing that Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193

(1988) requires that this Court should have stayed their case,

rather than having dismissed it on abstention grounds, because

the monetary relief they were seeking could not be obtained

through the state court proceedings; but

The Court finding Deakins to be inapposite to the case here,

as Deakins required the stay of federal court claims for money

damages because the contemporaneous state court criminal

proceedings could not provide such relief; and

The Court further finding that plaintiffs have not shown why

monetary damages are not available to them in the state forum,

see Docket No. 27 at 10-11 ; and 2

Therefore, the Court finding that plaintiffs have not

demonstrated that the Court needs to correct a clear error of law

or fact or to prevent manifest injustice;

As the Court noted in its prior Opinion, Mr. Giannini’s 2

constitutional claims were preserved for review by the New Jersey

Supreme Court. See N.J. Ct. R. 1:20-4(e) (“All constitutional

questions shall be held for consideration by the Supreme Court as

part of its review of any final decision of the Board.”)

Moreover, as the Court also noted, because Mr. Giannini’s claims,

and Ms. Giannini’s proposed claims, arise from Rosenberg's

conduct which is inextricably intertwined with Palm's and the

rest of the ethics panel, “a finding as to these defendants'

conduct would transcend this case and improperly restrain the

state court from making its own findings.” (Docket No. 27 at

12.) 

4

Case 1:11-cv-03542-NLH-AMD Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 657
Accordingly,

IT IS on this 26th day of March , 2013

ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen the case and shall make

a new and separate docket entry reading “CIVIL CASE REOPENED”;

and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration [29] is

DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended

complaint [35] is DENIED AS MOOT; and it is finally

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

Case 1:11-cv-03542-NLH-AMD Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 658