United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
JEFFREY P. SEMON, LINDA LEEVER and WILLIAM JACOT, Plaintiffs,
MAPS INDEED, INC., et al., Defendants.
before this Court for consideration is Plaintiffs' Motion
for Reconsideration (Doc. 116) of this Court's September
19, 2016 Order (Doc. 115). Plaintiffs have filed a brief in
support of the same (Doc. 117) and have subsequently filed at
attachment labeled “Exhibit A” (Doc. 122). All
Defendants have filed briefs in opposition (Docs. 119, 120,
and 121) to Plaintiffs' motion. This matter is ripe for
disposition. For the reasons that follow, we will deny
relevant facts are set forth in this Court's Memorandum
granting Defendant Victor DeAnthony's motion for a
temporary stay of proceedings. (Doc. 115). In support of
Plaintiffs' current motion for reconsideration,
Plaintiffs submit that new information has been obtained that
will allow them a new avenue to communicate with the
currently incarcerated Defendant Victor DeAnthony. It is on
this basis that Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the
September 19, 2016 Order (Doc. 115) and to allow them sixty
(60) days to address Defendant Victor DeAnthony's claims
Standard of Review
motion for reconsideration is a device of limited utility.
Its purpose is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or
to present newly discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v.
Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, a party seeking reconsideration must demonstrate
at least one of the following grounds prior to the court
altering, or amending, a standing judgment: (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court entered judgment; or (3) the 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) (citing North River Ins. Co. v.
CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.
1995)). A motion for reconsideration is appropriate in
instances where the court has “patently misunderstood a
party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues
presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error
not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Rohrbach v.
AT&T Nassau Metals Corp., 902 F.Supp. 523, 527 (M.D.
Pa. 1995), vacated in part on other grounds on
reconsideration, 915 F.Supp. 712 (M.D. Pa. 1996) (quoting
Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99
F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). It may not be used as a
means to reargue unsuccessful theories, or argue new facts or
issues that were not presented to the court in the context of
the matter previously decided. Drysdale v. Woerth,
153 F.Supp.2d 678, 682 (E.D. Pa. 2001). “Because
federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of
judgments, motions for reconsideration should be granted
sparingly.” Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified
Indus., Inc., 884 F.Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
usual vehicle for a motion for reconsideration is Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). However, neither Rule
59(e) nor 60(b) applies because the order Plaintiffs seek to
have reconsidered is not a final judgment or order but
rather, an interlocutory decision. See Bausch & Lomb
Inc. v. Moria S.A., 222 F.Supp.2d 616, 669 (E.D. Pa.
2002); Dayoub v. Penn-Del Directory Co., 90
F.Supp.2d 636, 637 (E.D. Pa. 2000); 15A Fed. Pract. &
Proc., § 3914.13 (2d ed.) (“A decision to
grant a stay ordinarily is no more final than denial, ...
[t]hey are no more appealable than other interlocutory
procedural orders.”). However, a federal district court
has the inherent power to reconsider interlocutory orders
“ ‘when it is consonant with justice to do
so.' ” Walker by Walker v. Pearl S. Buck
Foundation, Inc., Civ. No. 94-1503, 1996 WL 706714, at
*2 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 1996) (internal citations
provided for above, Plaintiffs request the court to
reconsider its interlocutory order temporarily staying the
proceedings. As the September 19, 2016 Order (Doc. 115) is
not a final judgment or order, but rather, an interlocutory
decision, their current motion is not properly before this
Court. Nonetheless, we will address their motion.
argue that new information has been obtained that will allow
them a new avenue to communicate with the currently
incarcerated Defendant Victor DeAnthony. Specifically,
Plaintiffs submit an email marked as “Exhibit A”
(Doc. 122) that purports to be an email correspondence
between Defendant Anthony DeAnthony's daughter and
counsel for Plaintiffs. Thus, in an attempt to satisfy the
standard for a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs hang
their hat on the argument that this email correspondence,
which purports to allow Plaintiffs a limited vehicle to
communicate with the incarcerated Defendant, is “new
evidence.” Plaintiffs' interpretation of what
constitutes “new evidence” is without merit.
Court notes that a motion for reconsideration may not be used
as a means to reargue unsuccessful theories, or argue new
facts or issues that were not presented to the court in the
context of the matter previously decided. Drysdale,
153 F.Supp.2d at 692 (stating its inability to “sift
through new evidence that, although in existence”
previously, was never presented to the court). Importantly,
“ ‘new evidence', for reconsideration
purposes, does not refer to evidence that a party ... submits
to the court after an adverse ruling. Rather, new evidence in
this context means evidence that a party could not earlier
submit to the court because that evidence was not previously
available.” Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397,
415-16 (3d Cir. 2011) (citations omitted.)
“Evidence that is not newly discovered, as so defined,
cannot provide the basis for a successful motion for
reconsideration.” Id. (citations
in the instant matter fail to present any new evidence, facts
or issues which were not previously in existence and
available to them. As highlighted by Defendants,
Plaintiffs' categorization of an avenue to communicate in
a limited way with the incarcerated Defendant as new evidence
or information, could have been obtained through the exercise
of due diligence previous to our decision. Additionally, the
alleged limited communication capabilities of the
incarcerated Defendant fails to address the basis for this
Court's Order. That is, Defendants still would not have
access to the business records located on Defendant Map
InDeed's computers that are located in a storage facility
in Virginia while Defendant Victor DeAnthony is incarcerated.
Plaintiffs' argument simply does not “provide the
basis for a successful motion for reconsideration.”
Blystone, 664 F.3d at 416. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration will be denied.
reasons set forth above, we will deny Plaintiffs' Motion