The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEGROME DAVIS, District Judge
By Memorandum and Order of September 22, 2003, the Court denied
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint to Reinstate the
Punitive Damages Claim. Plaintiff Capital Funding, VI, LP has filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of that decision and clarification of the
Court's scheduling order of the same date.
Courts should grant motions for reconsideration sparingly, reserving
them for instances where there has been "(1) an intervening change in
controlling law, (2) the emergence of new evidence not previously
available, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent
a manifest injustice." General Instrument Corp of Delaware, v. Nu-Tek
Elecs. & Mfg., Inc., 3 F. Supp.2d 602, 606 (E.D. Pa. 1998), aff'd.,
197 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 1999); see also Harsco Corp. V. Zlotnicki,
779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171, 106 S.Ct.
2895 (1986) ("The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence."). Mere dissatisfaction with the court's ruling is not a proper
basis for reconsideration. See U.S. v. Phillips, Nos. Civ. A. 97-6475,
93-CR-513, 2001 WL 527810, at *1 (E.D.Pa. May 17, 2001) (citing Burger
King Corp. v. New England Hood and Duct Cleaning Co., No. 98-3610, 2000
WL 133756, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Feb. 4, 2000).
The Court has considered and rejected Plaintiff's arguments not once,
several occasions. There is nothing new in Plaintiff's present Motion
that merits reconsideration. As for Plaintiff's request that the Court
clarify its scheduling order of September 22, 2003, that order is
abundantly clear on its face and in no need of clarification.
Ultimately, Plaintiff merely appears to disagree with the Court's
rulings, which alone is not a proper basis for granting Plaintiff's
ACCORDINGLY, this day of January, 2004, upon consideration of
Plaintiff Capital Funding, VI, LP's Motion for Reconsideration and
Clarification (Dkt. No. 24), and Defendant Chase Manhattan Bank USA,
N.A.'s response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...