Sherry Scalercio-Isenberg v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied pro se Plaintiff Sherry Scalercio-Isenberg’s second motion for reconsideration, which the Court construed under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). The Court held that Plaintiff identified no intervening change in law, newly available evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice warranting further reconsideration.

Holdings

1. A court evaluates a motion according to its function rather than its caption; Plaintiff's motion was properly construed as a second motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i).
2. Reconsideration is warranted only upon an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or prevent manifest injustice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's filing should be construed according to its function as a second motion for reconsideration rather than according to its caption.
2. Whether Plaintiff established an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice warranting reconsideration.

Disposition

other