Samost v. Luborsky, Civil No. 13-7365 (RBK/JS)
| Decision Date | 13 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 13-7365 (RBK/JS) |
| Parties | JOSEPH and IVA SAMOST, Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants, v. PAULA LUBORSKY, Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Paula Luborsky ("Plaintiff")'s Motion to Alter Judgment, to Make Supplemental and/or Amended Findings, or, in the Alternative, for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 100) and Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. No. 105). For the following reasons Plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment, Make Supplemental and/or Amended Findings, or, in the Alternative, for Reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED.
The Court need not belabor the factual background of the ongoing dispute amongst the Samost family which led to the recent contempt trial associated with the instant motions. The Court laid out the relevant factual background regarding this case in its opinion entered August 2, 2016. August 2, 2016 Opinion at 2-5 (Doc. No. 98). On August 2, 2016, this Court held Defendant Joseph Samost in contempt of court and ordered that Samost should pay Plaintiff's attorneys' fees, expert fees, and cost associated with the action, but only such fees as generated in federal court and not in the related state court proceeding. Plaintiff filed the instant motion to alter judgment, to make supplemental and/or amended findings, or, in the alternative, for reconsideration on August 15, 2016. Plaintiff then filed her motion for attorney fees on September 1, 2016.
Plaintiff first moves to have the Court make supplemental findings allowing a judgment which permits Plaintiff to submit an application for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in related State Court proceedings. Plaintiff's Motion to Alter ("MTA") at 2 (Doc. No. 100-1). "On a party's motion . . . the court may amend its findings—or make additional findings—and may amend the judgment accordingly." Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b). Rule 52(b) allows district courts to "correct plain errors of law or fact, or, in limited situations, to allow the parties to present newly discovered evidence." Roadmaster (USA) Corp. v. Calmodal Freight Sys., 153 F. App'x 827, 829 (3d Cir. 2005).
Rule 52 governs "findings and conclusions . . . by the court." Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). The court finds facts in cases "tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury." Id. Rule 52(b) relief is available after summary judgment has been granted, after a bench trial, and in habeas proceedings. Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 289 F. Supp. 2d 555, 561 (D.N.J. 2003). The Third Circuit has explained that "[t]he purpose of this rule is to allow the court to correct plain errors of law or fact, or in limited situations, to allow the parties to present newly discovered evidence." Roadmaster, 153 F. App'x at 829 (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff suggests that the Court had adequate facts on the record to determine that she incurred attorneys' fees attempting to enforce this Court's orders in state court. Plaintiff cites her testimony and Stephen Samost's testimony for the proposition that Plaintiff undertook specific efforts to enforce this Court's orders in state court. MTA at 2-3. This testimony is not new, nor did the Court overlook it. Plaintiff's testimony and Stephen Samost's testimony did not identify specific attempts or filings to enforce this Court's orders in state court. Plaintiff also cites to state court orders which reference this Court's orders as proof that the state court actions were undertaken to enforce this Court's orders. Id. at 3-5.
Even if the Court were to accept Plaintiff's contention that the state court may enforce this Court's order (rather than issue orders touching upon the same subject matter), Plaintiff has failed to provide any case law to suggest she may recover the state court fees from this Court. Plaintiff cites several cases to support her request for fees generated in the state court litigation. First, Plaintiff cites Robin Woods, Inc. v. Woods, 28 F.3d 396, 400 (3d Cir. 1994) for the proposition that an award of damages in a civil contempt proceeding should attempt to return the parties to the position they would have been in had the order been obeyed. MTA 5-6. Plaintiff then cites to three cases for the proposition federal courts have awarded attorneys' fees incurred in enforcing the federal court's order in state court. Two of these cases (Gilgallon v. Cty. of Hudson, 02-5948, 2006 WL 477042 (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 2006) and Schermerhorn v. CenturyTel., Inc., 528 B.R. 297 (S.D. Tex. 2015)) involved an award of attorneys' fees incurred defending state court actions that violated injunctive provisions of federal court orders. Neither the March 23, 2004 Order, nor the September 21, 2004 Order in this case contained such injunctive provisions. The final case, Chosin Few, Inc. v. Scott, 209 F. Supp. 2d 593 (W.D.N.C. 2002) isinapplicable, as that case involved Rule 11 sanctions for an attorney attempting to undermine a federal judgment.
The Court believes that the damages awarded in August 2016 have adequately put Plaintiff back in the position she would have been in had Joseph Samost obeyed the Court's original order. Woods, 28 F.3d at 400. The Court awarded damages for the diminution of Plaintiff's property in addition to the legal fees and costs incurred in this Court in this action. Thus, the Court has compensated Plaintiff for the damages Defendant caused by his defiance of this Court's order. The Court does not find any clear error or law or fact in the August 2, 2016 Opinion, nor has Plaintiff come forward with any newly discovered facts. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion to Make Supplemental and/or Amended Findings is denied.
Plaintiff also moves to alter judgment, or in the alternative, for reconsideration of this Court's previous decision not to award attorneys' fees for the state court matter. A motion to alter judgment is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), while a motion for reconsideration is brought under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). While these motions arise under different rules, the applicable standard for each rule is the same. See In re Vehicle Carrier Servs. Antitrust Litig., 13-3306, 2016 WL 1628879, at *2 (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2016) (citations omitted).
Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) directs a party seeking reconsideration to file a brief "setting forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked." L. Civ. R. 7.1(i); see also Bowers v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 130 F. Supp. 2d 610, 612 (D.N.J. 2001) () A motion for reconsideration under Rule 7.1(i) is "'an extremely limited procedural vehicle,' and requests pursuant to th[is] rule[ ] are to be granted 'sparingly.'" Langan Eng'g & Envtl. Servs.,Inc. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., Civ. No. 07-2983, 2008 WL 4330048, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2008) (citing P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 353 (D.N.J. 1992)).
To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must show at least one of the following grounds: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [made its initial decision]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). Reconsideration is not appropriate, however, where the motion only raises a party's disagreement with the Court's initial decision. Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 159, 163 (D.N.J. 1988); see also United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999) (); Schiano v. MBNA Corp., Civ. No. 05-1771, 2006 WL 3831225, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 28, 2006) () (citations omitted).
Plaintiff has not alleged any intervening change in controlling law, nor has she come forward with new evidence that was unavailable when the Court made its initial decision embodied in the August 2, 2016 Opinion. The Court has also already determined that there was no clear error of law or fact in the August 2, 2016 opinion in its earlier analysis of Plaintiff's motion to make supplemental or amended findings. See infra Part II.a. Thus, Plaintiff has not shown any of the grounds required for a motion to alter judgment or a motion forreconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to alter judgment or, in the alternative, for reconsideration, is denied.
Plaintiff makes a separate motion for the court to award attorney fees. This Court awarded Plaintiff attorney's fees incurred while pursuing her counterclaim for contempt against Defendant Joseph Samost and ordered that she file a fee application in accordance with Local Civil Rule 54.2. See August 2, 2016 Order (Doc. No. 99). As noted above, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorney fees on September 1, 2016. Defendant then filed a brief in opposition on September 19, 2016. Plaintiff filed her reply brief on September 26, 2016. Defendant then submitted a sur-reply on October 18, 2016. Plaintiff submitted a sur-sur-reply on October 26, 2016.
The Supreme Court has held that "the most useful starting point for determining the amount of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial