The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SHERRY SCALERCIO-ISENBERG,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02705 (BRM) (AME)
Plaintiff,
v.
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., et MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
al.,
Defendants.
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Sherry Scalercio-Isenberg’s (“Plaintiff”) “Motion to
Compel the court to follow the rule of law,” which was filed on October 30, 2025. (ECF No. 108.)
Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”), Brett L. Messinger (“Messinger”) and Kassia
Fialkoff (“Fialkoff,” and collectively with Messinger, the “Duane Morris Defendants” and together
with SPS, the “Defendants”) filed an opposition on November 13, 2025.1 (ECF No. 109.) Plaintiff
filed a reply on November 14, 2025. (ECF No. 110.) Having reviewed and considered the parties’
submissions filed in connection with the motion, for the reasons set forth below and for good cause
appearing, Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 108) is DENIED.
Initially, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as second motion for reconsideration,
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i), of this Court’s October 16, 2025 Opinion and Order, denying
Plaintiff’s motion to vacate and motion to compel. (ECF Nos. 103, 105; see also Turner v. Evers,
1 Defendants construe Plaintiff’s motion as a motion to vacate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(3). (ECF No. 109 at 7.) According to Defendants, the Court should deny the
motion because it is untimely and otherwise unsupported by “clear and convincing evidence” (Id.
(citing Brown v. Pa. R.R. Co., 282 F.2d 522, 527 (3d Cir. 1960).) The Court need not address these
arguments as it construes the motion differently and denies the motion on other grounds. See
Turner, 726 F.2d at 114.
726 F.2d 112, 114 (3d Cir. 1984) (“The focus . . . is on the function of the motion, not its
caption.”).)
“A court may grant a motion for reconsideration if the moving party shows one of the
following: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence
that was not available when the court issued its order; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law
or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Johnson v. Diamond State Port Corp., 50 F. App’x 554,
560 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999));
L. Civ. R. 7.1(i).
On October 24, 2025, this Court denied Plaintiff’s first motion for reconsideration of the
October 16, 2025 Opinion and Order. (ECF No. 107 (noting the underlying purpose for Plaintiff’s
first motion for reconsideration was to impermissibly “relitigate her claims”).) Plaintiff has shown
no basis for further reconsideration.
Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,
IT IS on this 26th day of February 2026,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 108) is DENIED.
/s/ Brian R. Martinotti
HON. BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT