The opinion of the court was delivered by: Eduardo C. Robreno, J.
Plaintiffs Azuna, LLC ("Azuna") and DAK International, LLC ("DAK," collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs") file this motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. (doc. no. 20.) For the reasons that follow, the motion for reconsideration (doc. no. 20) of the Court's Order dated October 30, 2008 will be granted in part to the extent the Court dismissed Plaintiff DAK's claim and denied in part to the extent it seeks reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of Plaintiff Azuna's claim.
Plaintiffs Azuna and DAK are limited liability companies organized under Pennsylvania law and located in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania. Netpia.com, Inc. ("Netpia") is a Korean corporation with its principal place of business in Seoul, Korea and Netpia International Corporation ("Netpia International") is the international arm of Netpia (collectively referred to as "Defendants").
Plaintiffs initiated the instant action against Defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania on November 1, 2007.*fn2 Plaintiffs allege one count of fraud in the inducement. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants materially misrepresented the function of their Native Language Internet Address ("NLIA") technology or failed to disclose material facts related to NLIA by leading Plaintiffs to believe that NLIA worked on all internet browsers when, in reality, it does not. Plaintiffs claim that they relied on these misrepresentations or omissions when deciding whether or not to enter into the Implementation Agreement dated May 25, 2005 (the "Agreement").
On October 30, 2008, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss asserting improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court found "the claim that Netpia fraudulently induced Azuna to enter into the Agreement falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. This claim is to be presented to the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board for determination and not to this Court." Azuna v. Netpia.com, Inc., 2008 WL 4787589, *4 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2008).
II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On November 18, 2008, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, challenging the Court's Memorandum and Order dated October 30, 2008. Plaintiffs argue the following: (1) the Court disregarded DAK's fraud in the inducement claim; and (2) the Court overlooked the language of the Implementation Agreement limiting the scope of its arbitration clause to govern only the limited matters discussed within the four corners of the document. Oral argument on Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was held on June 26, 2009. Following oral argument, the Court ordered further briefing on whether DAK is bound by the arbitration agreement.
A district court has the authority to correct a mistake in a judgment or order "arising from oversight or omission" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). Parties are also afforded relief from a final judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) in the event of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Co. V. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Reconsideration is appropriate where the party seeking reconsideration establishes "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court . . . [issued its previous decision]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law ...