The opinion of the court was delivered by: Eduardo C. Robreno, J.
On May 4, 2009, Plaintiffs Lisa Liberi ("Liberi"), Philip J. Berg, Esq. ("Berg"), the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg, Evelyn Adams a/k/a Momma E ("Adams"), Lisa Ostella ("Ostella"), and Go Excel Global (collectively, "Plaintiffs") initiated this defamation, libel and slander action against Defendants Orly Taitz ("Taitz"), Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. ("DOFF"), Neil Sankey, The Sankey Firm and Sankey Investigations, Inc. (collectively, "Sankey"), Edgar Hale, Caren Hale, Plains Radio, KPRN AM 1610, Bar H. Farms, Plains Radio Network (collectively, "the Hales"), and Linda Sue Belcher (collectively, "Defendants").
On June 3, 2010, the Court severed the action and transferred the claims to each Defendant's home jurisdiction. Before the Court is Plaintiff Berg's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration (doc. no. 120), Defendant Taitz's response (doc. no. 121) and Defendant Sankey's response (fax dated 6/11/10). On June 18, 2010, Plaintiff Berg filed a motion for leave to file a motion to strike Defendant Taitz's response (doc. no. 122).
II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
A motion for reconsideration is treated as the "functional equivalent" of a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) which seeks to alter or amend a judgment. Fed. Kemper Ins. Co. v. Rauscher, 807 F.2d 345, 348 (3d Cir. 1986) (internal citation omitted). 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 or fact or prevent manifest injustice." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou Ann 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); U.S. v. Cabiness, 278 F. Supp. 2d 478. 483-84 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (Robreno, J.).
B. Proposed Grounds for Reconsideration
On June 7, 2010, Plaintiff Berg faxed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. See doc. no. 120 (docketed 6/13/10). Defendant Taitz responded by fax on June 10, 2010 and Defendant Sankey responded by fax on June 11, 2010. See Taitz 6/10/10 Ltr., doc. no. 121 (docketed 6/14/10); see also Sankey 6/11/10 Ltr. Mr. Sankey's response was not filed of record.*fn1
In his letter, Plaintiff Berg lists eight purported errors in the Court's 6/3/10 Order that severed the action and transferred the claims to each of Defendants' home jurisdictions. Upon review, Plaintiff Berg actually raises only three discrete issues. Importantly, Plaintiff Berg's motion does not argue that the legal conclusions set forth in the Memorandum were incorrect.
The three outstanding administrative errors raised by Plaintiff Berg are grouped as follows.
Points 6, 8 and 9 are as follows:
Point 6: There is a discrepancy in the Court's Order of June 3, 2010, docketed on June 4, 2010 appearing as Docket Entry No. 118; Point 8: Amendment of this Court's June 3, 2010 Order, docketed June 4, 2010, appearing, as Docket Entry No. 118 is proper. This Court has the inherent Power to amend its ...