Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kurowski v. City of Washington

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

January 13, 2015

CHARLES E. KUROWSKI, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF WASHINGTON, RON McINTYRE, Code Officer, and RON McINTYRE, Individually, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

TERRENCE F. McVERRY, Senior District Judge.

Now pending before the Court is the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 14) filed on December 23, 2014, by Plaintiff, Charles Kurowski.[1] In the motion, Plaintiff asks this Court reconsider its ruling, which denied his motion for a preliminary injunction on the basis of the Younger abstention doctrine and stayed the damages portion of this case pending the outcome of the parallel state-court proceedings making their way through the Washington County Court of Common Peas. "The purpose of a motion for reconsideration... is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). A prior decision may be altered or amended only if the party seeking reconsideration demonstrates one of the following: (1) "an intervening change in the controlling law;" (2) "the availability of new evidence that was not available when the" motion under consideration was decided; or (3) "the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or prevent manifest injustice." Id. Plaintiff has not even attempted to address any of these factors. Nor has he addressed the specific basis of the Court's decision to deny his motion for preliminary injunction: the Younger abstention doctrine. He merely rehashes the arguments made in his prior filings and attempts to distinguish a few cases cited in Defendant's response, which the Court has already explained have no application in this case and which played absolutely no part in the Court's decision.[2] See ECF No. 12, at 4-5 n.2 (noting that Defendants cited "two Title VII cases which have absolutely no application to this case"). Accordingly, since Plaintiff has not established any basis upon which the Court should reconsider its prior ruling, his motion is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.