Maria Diamonte v. Taja Nia Henderson; Kinna Perry; Gary Farney; Jacqueline Mattis; Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey; the Board of Governors of Rutgers, the State of New Jersey; Rutgers University Foundation of the State University; John Doe 1-100; Jane Doe 1-100

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Maria Diamonte’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of her claims against Rutgers-related defendants and others. The court held that the plaintiff had not shown an intervening change in law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice warranting relief under Rule 59(e). The court reaffirmed its conclusions that the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights proceeding precluded or barred certain discrimination claims and that the Equal Protection and Title VII claims were properly dismissed.

Holdings

1. Reconsideration was denied because Diamonte identified no intervening change in controlling law or newly available evidence and failed to show a clear error of law, manifest injustice, or another basis for disturbing the prior dismissal.
2. The court properly considered the DCR's final determination and related documents because courts may take judicial notice of public records and may consider documents integral to or incorporated into a plaintiff's claims without converting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into one for summary judgment.
3. N.J.S.A. § 10:5-27 barred Diamonte from bringing other actions based on the same grievance after the DCR issued its final determination, subject to appellate review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Diamonte satisfied the Rule 59(e) standard for reconsideration by showing an intervening change in law, newly available evidence, or a clear error of law or fact or manifest injustice.
2. Whether the court properly considered the DCR's final determination and related documents in resolving defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
3. Whether the court properly applied N.J.S.A. § 10:5-27's election-of-remedies provision and issue preclusion to Diamonte's discrimination claims.
4. Whether the court should reconsider dismissal of Diamonte's Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Title VII claims.

Disposition

other