NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF 

MISS BELMAR II FISHING INC., AS 

OWNER OF THE P/V ROYAL MISS 

BELMAR FOR EXONERATION FROM, OR 

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-4757 (MLC)

 O P I N I O N

THE COURT earlier denied the claimants’ motion to transfer the 

action to the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands. 

(See dkt. entry no. 115, 5-29-13 Order; dkt. entry no. 114, 5-29-13 

Op.; see also dkt. entry no. 87, Transfer Mot.) The claimants now 

move for reconsideration of the 5-29-13 Order, and reiterate their 

request that the Court transfer the action to the United States 

District Court of the Virgin Islands. (See dkt. entry no. 118, 

Reconsideration Mot.)

IT IS “well settled that a motion for reconsideration . . . is 

‘an extremely limited procedural vehicle.’” Tehan v. Disab. Mgmt. 

Servs., Inc., 111 F.Supp.2d 542, 549 (D.N.J. 2000) (citation 

omitted). District courts, which enjoy discretion to grant or deny 

motions for reconsideration, grant such motions very sparingly. 

See Caver v. City of Trenton, 420 F.3d 243, 258 (3d Cir. 2005); 

Cataldo v. Moses, 361 F.Supp.2d 420, 433 (D.N.J. 2004). A movant 

seeking reconsideration must show: (1) an intervening change in 

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

Case 3:11-cv-04757-MLC-LHG Document 121 Filed 06/14/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 2389
2

previously unavailable; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of 

law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. See, e.g., Max’s 

Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 

(3d Cir. 1999). 

A MOVANT seeking reconsideration may not “relitigate old 

matters” or “raise argument or present evidence that could have 

been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Boretsky v. Governor 

of N.J., 433 Fed.Appx. 73, 78 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Wilchombe v. 

TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009)); Dunkley v. 

Mellon Investor Servs., 378 Fed.Appx. 169, 172 (3d Cir. 2010) 

(same). “This prohibition includes new arguments that were 

previously available, but not pressed.” Wilchombe, 555 F.3d at 957 

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also

Summerfield v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, 264 F.R.D. 133, 145 

(D.N.J. 2009) (“A motion for reconsideration will [] fail if the 

moving party raises argument[s] . . . that could have been raised 

. . . before the original decision was reached.”).

RECONSIDERATION is not warranted where the movant merely 

recapitulates the cases and arguments previously analyzed by the 

court. Arista Recs., Inc. v. Flea World, Inc., 356 F.Supp.2d 411, 

416 (D.N.J. 2005); see also Tehan, 111 F.Supp.2d at 549 (“Motions 

for reconsideration will not be granted where a party simply asks 

the court to analyze the same facts and cases it had already 

Case 3:11-cv-04757-MLC-LHG Document 121 Filed 06/14/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 2390
3

considered . . . .”). Similarly, reconsideration is not warranted 

where the apparent purpose of the motion is for the movant to 

express disagreement with the court’s initial decision. Tehan, 111 

F.Supp.2d at 549. 

THE COURT has carefully reviewed the brief that the claimants 

have filed in support of the Reconsideration Motion. The claimants 

fail to argue that: (1) there has been an intervening change in 

controlling law; (2) new evidence is available that was previously 

unavailable; or (3) there exists a need to correct a clear error of 

law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. But cf. Max’s 

Seafood Café, 176 F.3d at 677. The claimants also fail to 

demonstrate that the Court earlier committed “a clear error of law 

or fact.” Indeed, the Court stated in the 5-29-13 Opinion that the 

claimants “ha[d] failed to direct the Court to any binding 

authority stating or suggesting that Supplemental Rule F(9) would 

permit transfer of the action to the United States District Court 

of the Virgin Islands.” (5-29-13 Op. at 4.) That remains the 

case, even after consideration of the claimants’ brief in support 

of the Reconsideration Motion.

Case 3:11-cv-04757-MLC-LHG Document 121 Filed 06/14/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 2391
4

THE COURT, for good cause appearing, thus intends to deny the 

Reconsideration Motion. The Court will enter a separate Order.1

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: June 14, 2013

 

1 The Court here expresses no opinion on the claimants’ 

response to the 5-29-13 Order, insofar as that Order required all 

parties to the action to show cause why the action should not be 

transferred “either to the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida or to a United States District Court 

located in a vicinage within California, Vermont, or West Virginia 

where at least one of the individual claimants remaining in this 

action resides.” (5-29-13 Order at 1; see dkt. entry no. 119, 

Claimants’ Response.)

Case 3:11-cv-04757-MLC-LHG Document 121 Filed 06/14/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 2392