In motions for reconsideration after a final order, a party must demonstrate that the judge who issued the order sought to be reconsidered decided it in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner that the decision was based on a palpably incorrect or irrational basis or that the judge failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence. Further, the standard that the Middlesex Court described-usually credited to the case of Cummings v. In that situation, Rule 4:49-2 applies, and a party must file within 20 days. The court noted that the principles the Middlesex County judge discussed apply to a motion for reconsideration from a final order. The New Jersey Rules of Court and case law treat each differently, but they are often confused. The Appellate Division then took the opportunity to clarify the rules that apply to the two general species of reconsideration: reconsideration of an interlocutory order and reconsideration of a final order or judgment. It also noted that the Middlesex County judge found that the reconsideration motion presented no new facts that the plaintiff failed to show that the Somerset County judge acted in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner that the initial decision was not based on a palpably incorrect or irrational basis and that the previous judge did not fail to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence. On appeal, the Appellate Division first set out the legal principles that the Middlesex County judge invoked, including the coordinate-jurisdiction rule, which cautions against reversing the decisions of coequal members of the judiciary, and the law-of-the-case doctrine, that cautions against reconsidering decisions that have already been determined in the case. The plaintiff filed a petition for leave to appeal, which the Appellate Division granted. The parties argued the reconsideration motion, and the Middlesex County judge denied it. While the reconsideration motion was pending, the venue of the case was changed from Somerset to Middlesex County. On May 14, 2020, the court denied most of the relief sought, and the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. After a case management conference, the plaintiff moved for an additional extension of discovery, the right to take certain depositions, reconsideration of an order barring a witness from testifying after the witness failed to appear for a subpoenaed deposition, leave to file an amended complaint, and for the defendant to turn over all use-of-force reports. In Lawson, the plaintiff filed suit against a municipality and a number of police officers, alleging the officers used excessive force when arresting him. 2021), the court took the opportunity to clarify the different standards that apply to reconsideration. In a recent case before the New Jersey Appellate Division, Lawson v. Let us take a moment to reconsider reconsideration.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |