IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
July 20, 2010
TERESA ANNE SCOTT, PLAINTIFF
PAMELA WELLINGTON LACKEY AND EVAN LESLIE ADAMS, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 20th day of July, 2010, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 347) to vacate the court's order granting defendant Adams's summary judgment motion, filed by plaintiff Teresa Anne Scott ("Scott") under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, wherein Scott requests that the court reconsider its order (Doc. 345) dated January 20, 2010, which granted summary judgment on all claims in favor of defendant Evan Adams ("Adams"), but deferred entry of final judgment because Scott's claims against defendant Pamela Wellington Lackey ("Lackey") have yet to be resolved, and recognizing that the court's January 20, 2010 order was interlocutory in nature, see O. Hommel Co. v. Ferro Corp., 659 F.2d 340, 353 (3d Cir. 1981) (defining "judgment" as a "final judgment," which comprises "a decree and any order from which an appeal lies"), and recognizing that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to present newly discovered evidence or to correct manifest errors of law or fact, see Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), that the court possesses inherent power to reconsider its interlocutory orders "when it is consonant with justice to do so," United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973), and that a party may not invoke a motion for reconsideration as a means to relitigate matters of disagreement with the court or to raise stale arguments anew, see Abu-Jamal v. Horn, No. Civ. A. 99-5089, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2001); see also Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995) (rejecting litigant's "classic attempt at a 'second bite at the apple'"), and it further appearing that Scott's claim that Adams did not meet his Rule 56 burden is without merit,*fn1 that Scott was afforded ample opportunity to address and respond to the issue of whether an agency relationship existed,*fn2 and that the remainder of Scott's assertions do not concern manifest errors of law or fact or newly discovered evidence, see Harsco, 779 F.2d at 909; Erdman v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 621 F. Supp. 2d 230, 233 (M.D. Pa. 2007) (indicating that a motion for reconsideration may not be used to introduce claims not previously presented), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 347) to vacate the court's order granting defendant Adams's summary judgment motion under Rule 59 is CONSTRUED as a motion for reconsideration and is DENIED as so construed.