Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MARTINEZ v. QUALITY VALUE CONVENIENCE

September 7, 1999

ARISTIDES MARTINEZ
v.
QUALITY VALUE CONVENIENCE, INC. A/K/A QVC CABLE TELEVISION NETWORK.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Louis H. Pollak, United States District Judge.

MEMORANDUM

Presently before the court in this employment discrimination action are cross-motions for reconsideration arising from my Order of February 12, 1999 ("the Order") and plaintiffs motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in support of his motion for reconsideration. The Order granted summary judgment to defendant QVC on plaintiffs claims of age discrimination. QVC does not contest the grant of summary judgment on the age discrimination claims, but moves this court to reconsider the denial of its motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law, which asked the court to grant summary judgment on plaintiffs claims of race and national origin discrimination as well. Martinez asks this court to reconsider the reasoning that led to the grant of summary judgment on the age discrimination claims.*fn1 For the reasons set forth below, I will reconsider the Order.

I. Procedural History

The chronology of motions leading up to the grant of summary judgment is somewhat complex. On December 19, 1997, QVC filed a motion for partial summary judgment (docket # 16), argning that Martinez had not exhausted his administrative remedies related to his claims of race and national origin discrimination and that certain of Martinez's state law claims were not cognizable. Martinez thrice requested an extension of time. See docket nos. 17, 20, 24. Martinez was given until April 6, 1998 to respond and a dispositive motion deadline of April 29, 1998 was set. Docket # 26, # 30.

On April 29, 1998, QVC filed a second motion for summary judgment, arguing that Martinez had neither established a prima facie claim of age discrimination nor rebutted QVC's legitimate nondiscriminatory explanations for its failure to hire him. Docket # 36. Martinez was directed to respond to the second motion for summary judgment by May 21, 1998. Docket # 37.

Martinez responded to the first motion for summary judgment on May 22, 1998. Docket # 39. The first motion for summary judgment was granted as to the state law claims but denied as to the age discrimination claims. Docket # 42.

QVC then filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in support of its second motion for summary judgment. Docket # 43. The motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law — filed on October 9, 1998, more than five months after the dispositive motion deadline had passed — asked this court to find that Martinez had failed to establish a prima facie case or come foreword with evidence sufficient to cast doubt on the legitimacy of QVC's nondiscriminatory explanations with respect not only to Martinez's claims of age discrimination (the subject of the original summary judgment motion), but also with respect to Martinez's claims of race and national origin discrimination. Martinez twice requested an extension of time and, following a hearing, was granted until December 1, 1998 to respond to the pending motion for summary judgment. Docket nos. 44, 45, 47, 48. Martinez responded on December 1, 1998. Docket # 49. QVC replied on December 14, 1998. Docket # 50. On February 16, 1999, I granted QVC's motion for summary judgment as to the age discrimination claims and dismissed as moot QVC's motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law. Each side filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order. Docket nos. 63 & 67. On June 1, 1999, Martinez filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in support of his motion for reconsideration; the supplemental memorandum of law that he sought to have the court consider was attached to the motion. Docket # 70.

II. Discussion

                          A. Martinez's Motion for
                              Reconsideration

The bulk of Martinez's submissions reargue the positions he presented in his brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Martinez has not alerted this court to an intervening change in controlling law or any clear error of law or manifest injustice. Mere disagreement with this court's decision is not enough to grant a motion for reconsideration. See Bermingham v. Sony Corp., 820 F. Supp. 834, 856 (D.N.J. 1992), aff'd 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir. 1994). However, in the memorandum attached to his motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in support of his motion for reconsideration of the Order, Martinez purports to supply "new evidence recently obtained." Pl. Mem. at 2. A review of the memorandum reveals that neither it nor the attached documentary exhibits provide anything that is "new" in any relevant respect. While Martinez does supply several trade paper advertisements for editor and technical director positions that appear not to have been produced as part of any submission to the court over the past two years, the advertisements track in all relevant respects those considered by the court in the Order. Accordingly, Martinez's motion is denied in an order accompanying this memorandum.

B. QVC's Motion for Reconsideration

QVC argues that my decision to deny as moot its motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law was fundamentally unfair. While I do not think the order was fundamentally unfair, I am now convinced that the decision was not in accord with the spirit — if not the letter — of the Federal Rules. Accordingly, in an order accompanying this memorandum I grant the motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum.

The motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law was accompanied by the supplemental memorandum that QVC hoped to receive permission to file. That supplemental memorandum argued that, based on Martinez's failure to come forward with a substantive case of race or national origin discrimination, summary judgment was warranted not only on Martinez's claims of age discrimination, but on his claims of race and national origin discrimination as well. Though the motion to amend was filed before Martinez had responded to the second motion for summary judgment and before I had ruled on the first motion for summary judgment, the deadline for dispositive motions had passed.

I denied the motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum because it appeared to be an attempt to file a third summary judgment motion after the dispositive motion deadline had passed. QVC has not pointed to any fact that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.