IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
March 16, 2010
WILLIAM I. KISNER, PLAINTIFF,
PETER R. DEFAZIO, JOHN A. KEARNEY, WILLIAM P. MULLEN, JOSEPH A. RIZZO, DENNIS SKOSNIK, MICHELLE TERRY, AND ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ambrose, District Judge
MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT
On March 15, 2010, Defendant William P. Mullen ("Defendant" or "Mullen"), filed a Motion for Reconsideration of my March 15, 2010 Order of Court identifying the statements deemed to be protected expressions by the Plaintiff. (Docket No. 282). Plaintiff opposes Mullen's Motion. (Docket No. 283). After careful consideration of the parties' submissions, Mullen's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
A motion for reconsideration will be granted where: (1) new evidence becomes available; (2) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; or (3) there is a need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999); North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995). Mullen, however, does not offer any new evidence or raise any new issues of fact or law to warrant another review. Mullen likewise has not demonstrated clear legal or factual error or manifest injustice.
THEREFORE, this 16th day of March, 2010, upon consideration of Defendant Mullen's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 282), it is hereby ordered that said Motion is denied.
Donetta W. Ambrose U.S. District Judge
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.