JABRI v. BANK OF AMERICA

District Court, D. New Jersey

JABRI v. BANK OF AMERICA

Trial Court Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

TARIQ JABRI, Civil Action No. 24-9197 (SDW) (JSA)

Plaintiff, WHEREAS OPINION v.

April 22, 2025 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Defendant.

WIGENTON, District Judge. THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon pro se Plaintiff Tariq Jabri’s motion for reconsideration (D.E. 39 (“Motion”)) filed on March 5, 2025, and seemingly supplemented by filings on March 20, 2025 (D.E. 41), April 4, 2025 (D.E. 43), and April 7, 2025 (D.E. 44), and this Court having reviewed Plaintiff’s submissions and Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s opposition filed on March 24, 2025 (D.E. 42); and WHEREAS Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s March 3, 2025 opinion (D.E. 37) and order (D.E. 38) granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and WHEREAS a party moving for reconsideration must show “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [reached its original decision]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice,” Blystone v. Horn,

664 F.3d 397, 415

(3d Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and italics omitted). Its brief must “set[] forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge has overlooked,” L. Civ. R. 7.1(i); and WHEREAS Plaintiff here has not met these requirements. To the extent it is comprehensible, Plaintiff’s Motion identifies one decision from the Supreme Court of Michigan and another from the United States Supreme Court. (D.E. 39 at 1–2.) Plaintiff does not explain

how either has any bearing on this Court’s dismissal of the complaint on Rooker-Feldman grounds. (Id.) Otherwise, Plaintiff’s filings appear to be a request for information (D.E. 43) and a complaint form he filed with what appears to be a state entity (D.E. 44). The Motion identifies no changes in law, new evidence, or error in need of correction; therefore Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. An appropriate order follows.

/s/ Susan D. Wigenton SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.

Orig: Clerk cc: Parties Jessica S. Allen, U.S.M.J.

Reference

Status
Unknown