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.

EBC, Inc. v. Clark Building Systems

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


January 16, 2008

EBC, INC. AND STATE STEEL SUPPLY INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
CLARK BUILDING SYSTEMS AND AMERICAN COMPOST CORPORATION AND A & M COMPOSTING, INC. AND SOLID WASTE SERVICES, INC., D/B/A J.P. MASCARO & SONS, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Nora Barry Fischer

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff State Steel's Motions: (A) to Reconsider, and (B) For Relief from Judgment [DE 72], filed by Plaintiff State Steel Supplying Inc. on January 4, 2008. On January 14, 2008, Defendants American Compost Corporation, A&M Composting, Inc. and Solid Waste Services, Inc., d/b/a J.P. Mascaro & Sons (collectively hereinafter, "Defendants") filed their Response in Opposition to Plaintiff, State Steel Supply, Inc.'s Motions to Reconsider and Relief from Judgment.

In its motion, Plaintiff State Steel requests that the Court reconsider its December 18, 2007 Memorandum Opinion and Order, which, among other things, dismissed Plaintiff's breach of contract claim.*fn1 In particular, Plaintiff offers an errata sheet from the deposition of Adrienne Chizek, the owner of Plaintiff State Supply, which, according to Plaintiff, "suggests Ms. Chizek's belief that a contract did exist between State Steel and Defendants." Docket No. 72, at 2. In response, Defendants assert that Plaintiff's motion should be denied insofar as "the purported errata sheet that State Steel offers was neither executed nor submitted in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. No. 30(e)." Docket No. 75, at 3.

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, 779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir. 1985). Such a motion should only be granted "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 for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995). Based on the Court's reading of its motion, Plaintiff requests reconsideration pursuant to the second grounds, i.e., new evidence. A motion for reconsideration will not be granted if the moving party is merely asking the court to "rethink what has already been decided." Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993).

The Court finds Plaintiff's argument unpersuasive. The Plaintiff fails to establish , let alone argue, that the new evidence in the form of the errata sheet was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment. See In re Loewen Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. Civ.A. 98-6740, 2006 WL 27286, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2006) (citation omitted) ("In a motion for reconsideration, the burden is on the movant ... to show 'manifest' errors of law or fact or new evidence"). Moreover, the Court finds that, after numerous opportunities to amend the record and file the errata sheet, the Plaintiff failed to do so. For example, when Defendants filed their original motion, they attached portions of the Ms. Chizek's deposition, yet Plaintiff never filed the errata sheet. After numerous status conferences as to the pending motion and during which the Court discussed Ms. Chizek's deposition, Plaintiff never mentioned the errata sheet. Finally, even after Defendants filed a complete transcript copy of Ms. Chizek's deposition on December 18, 2007, which the Court had previously ordered them to do on November 29, 2007, Plaintiff still neither filed nor even raised the issue of the errata sheet.*fn2

Accordingly, considering the standard on a motion for reconsideration and in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, the Court DENIES Plaintiff State Steel's Motions: (A) to reconsider, and (B) For Relief from Judgment [DE 72].

Nora Barry Fischer United States District Judge


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.