United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
September 7, 2005.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff
READING BLUE MOUNTAIN & NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES MUNLEY, District Judge
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Presently before the Court for disposition is the Plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration and clarification of our Order
granting partial summary judgment. For the reasons expressed
below, we will deny this motion.
"The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 799 F.2d 906, 909 (3d
Cir. 1985); Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). The movant must
demonstrate one of three grounds in order for such a motion to be
granted: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the
need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest
injustice. Max's Seafood Cafe, 176 F.3d at 677. A motion for
reconsideration is not a proper vehicle to merely attempt to
convince the court to rethink a decision it has already made.
Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109,
1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993). Plaintiff argues that we made a clear error of law. We
disagree. Plaintiff raises the same or similar issues addressed
in our summary judgment memorandum, and its motion for
reconsideration is merely an attempt to induce the Court to
rethink its decision. Therefore, we deny the motion for
As to clarification, we did not address every potential issue
and every damage claim in the case, but addressed only those
issues raised by Defendant's partial motion for summary judgment.
The Memorandum and Order disposing of Defendants' partial motion
for summary judgment was sufficiently clear as to the Court's
reasoning and its decision.
AND NOW, to wit, this 7th day of September 2005,
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and for clarification
(Doc. 34) is hereby DENIED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.