Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

MUNICIPAL REVENUE SERVICES, INC. v. XSPAND

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania


May 17, 2005.

MUNICIPAL REVENUE SERVICES, INC. Plaintiff,
v.
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 denied.

  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).

  DISCUSSION:

  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 other respects.

  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.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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