NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

KEVIN McNULTY, District Judge.

Now before the Court is the motion of the plaintiff for reconsideration of the Order (ECF no. 124) and Amended Opinion (ECF no. 125) adoption the Report and Recommendation ("R&R", ECF no. 121) of Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The standards governing a motion for reconsideration are well settled. See generally D.N.J. Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(i). Reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy," to be granted "sparingly." NL Indus. Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F.Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996). Generally, reconsideration is granted in three scenarios: (1) when there has been an intervening change in the law; (2) when new evidence has become available; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. See North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995); Carmichael v. Everson, 2004 WL 1587894, at *1 (D.N.J. May 21, 2004). Local Rule 7.1(i) requires such a motion to specifically identify "the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked." Id.; see also Egloff v. New Jersey Air Nat'l Guard, 684 F.Supp. 1275, 1279 (D.N.J. 1988). Evidence or arguments that were available at the time of the original decision will not support a motion for reconsideration. Damiano v. Sony Music Entm't, Inc., 975 F.Supp. 623, 636 (D.N.J. 1997); see also North River Ins. Co., 52 F.3d at 1218; Bapu Corp. v. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc., 2010 WL 5418972, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2010) (citing P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161 F.Supp.2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001)).

Plaintiff argues that there is "manifest injustice" in the Court's exercise of its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. He cites the delay in the state court case and states that a ruling by this court may "expedite" matters in the foreclosure action brought by Wells Fargo. This was, however, a discretionary decision by this court. This case, as noted, is a dispute between two sisters over the estate of their mother, a dispute which also involves a nephew. That can only be finally settled in the state court litigation(s), not via a collateral action for damages by one sister against another, involving a single aspect of that sprawling dispute. That a federal decision might "expedite" matters in a long-pending state case is not a sufficient basis for this Court to hear a pure state-law case.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons expressed in my prior Opinion and Judge Hammer's R&R, the motion for reconsideration is denied. An appropriate order accompanies this Opinion.