IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
October 12, 2010
USTAAD SYSTEMS, INC., PLAINTIFF
ICAP INTERNATIONAL CORP. T/B/D/A CAP COMPUTER CONSULTANTS, INC. AND CARLOS AGUADO, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 12th day of October, 2010, upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 21), filed by defendant Cap Computer Consultants, Incorporated ("CCC") and its president and sole shareholder, defendant Carlos Aguado ("Aguado") (collectively, "defendants"), wherein defendants seek reconsideration of the memorandum and order of court (Doc. 20) dated July 16, 2010 (hereinafter "the July 16 order") on the grounds that the July 16 order should have granted defendants' motion to dismiss the claim for unjust enrichment brought against Aguado individually,*fn1 and it further appearing 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); Alea N. Am. Ins. Co. v. Salem Masonry Co. 301 F. App'x 119, 121 (3d Cir. 2008), and that a party may not invoke a motion for reconsideration as a means to relitigate matters of disagreement with the court, see Abu-Jamal v. Horn, No. Civ. A. 99-5089, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2001), and the court concluding that the allegations raised by plaintiff USTAAD Systems, Incorporated ("USTAAD"), when considered in the light most favorable to USTAAD, are sufficient to state a claim for unjust enrichment,*fn2 and the court further concluding that defendants have not demonstrated that the July 16 order contains a manifest error of law or fact,*fn3 and that their motion for reconsideration merely seeks to relitigate a "point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant," Abu-Jamal, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9; see also Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226 F. Supp. 2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 21) is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge