United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
May 17, 2005.
MUNICIPAL REVENUE SERVICES, INC. Plaintiff,
XSPAND, INC., Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN E. JONES, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Reconsider ("the
Motion") (doc. 34) the Court's May 4, 2005 Order filed by
Plaintiff Municipal Revenue Services, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "MRS")
on May 13, 2005. For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be
STANDARD OF REVIEW:
Motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly as
federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of
judgments. Burger King Corp. v. New England Hood & Duct Cleaning
Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1022, at *2 (E.D. Pa. 2000). "The
purpose of a motion for reconsideration . . . is to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence."
Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.
1999) (quoting Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909
(3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986)).
"Accordingly, a judgment may be altered or amended if the party
seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following
grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2)
the availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court granted the motion; or (3) the need to correct a clear
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Id.
(citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co.,
52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)).
"A motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to
reargue matters already argued and disposed of or as an attempt
to relitigate a point of disagreement between the Court and the
litigant." Abu-Jamal v. Horn, No. CIV. A. 99-5089, 2001 WL
1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted); see also Ogden v. Keystone Residence,
226 F.Supp.2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002).
In our May 4, 2005 Order, we granted a Motion to Extend
Deadline filed by Defendant Xspand, Inc. ("Defendant" or
"Xspand") to the extent that we extended briefing deadlines
related to Plaintiff's previously filed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. See Rec. Doc. 27. We directed that Defendant shall
have five days from the conclusion of the expedited discovery to
file a brief in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction and that Plaintiff shall have five days
from the receipt of Defendant's submission to file a reply brief
if it so desires.*fn1 We denied Defendant's Motion in all
In its Motion, Plaintiff states that it has no objection to the
parties submitting supplemental briefing upon the completion of
expedited discovery, but in order to avoid prejudice to
Plaintiff, and to properly prepare for discovery, Plaintiff needs
to ascertain what positions Defendant is adopting on the various
legal and factual issues set forth in Plaintiff's Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction, before the depositions occur. (Pl.'s Mot.
Reconsid. at 1-2). Plaintiff explains that before the Court
granted Defendant's request to extend the briefing schedule one
day after it was filed, Plaintiff had no opportunity to notify
the Court of its position that a request for an extension to a
briefing deadline may impede Plaintiff's ability to effectively
and efficiently conduct expedited discovery. (Pl.'s Br. Supp.
Mot. Reconsid. at 4). After a careful review of Plaintiff's Motion and accompanying
submission, we do not find that Plaintiff has demonstrated any
one of the following necessary to alter or amend our May 4, 2005
Order: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court granted the Motion to Extend Deadline;*fn2 or (3) the
need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Café,
176 F.3d at 677(citing North River Ins. Co., 52 F.3d at 1218).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court's May 4, 2005 Order is denied.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's May 4,
2005 Order (doc. 34) is DENIED.