United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
GIBSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of
the Denial of Summary Judgment as to Punitive Damages Based
on Newly-Decided Authorities ("Motion for
Reconsideration"). (ECF No. 64.) The issues have been
fully briefed (see ECF Nos. 65, 66) and the Motion
is ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow,
Defendant's motion will be DENIED.
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 and 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
case arises from injuries that Plaintiff suffered when he was
struck by a train operated by Defendant at a public grade
crossing. On September 13, 2017, this Court published a
memorandum opinion and accompanying order granting
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on
Plaintiff's claims that Defendant (1) negligently
exceeded the speed limit, (2) negligently failed to have
adequate pedestrian warnings, (3) negligently designed and
maintained the crossing, and (4) negligently failed to issue
adequate audible warnings. The Court denied Defendant's
motion for summary judgment on (1) Plaintiff's claim for
negligent operation of the train and (2) Plaintiff's
claim for punitive damages. See Lopez v. CSX
Transportation, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-257, 2017 WL 4063931,
at *13 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2017).
now asks this Court to reconsider its denial of summary
judgment on Plaintiff's punitive damages claim.
(See ECF No. 64; ECF No. 65.)
motion for reconsideration is a limited vehicle used 'to
correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.'" Jackson v. City of
Philadelphia, 535 Fed.Appx. 64, 69 (3d Cir. 2013)
(quoting Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.1999)).
"Accordingly, a judgment may be altered or amended if
the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the
following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that
was not available when the court granted the motion for
summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of
law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." U.S.
ex rel. Schumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d
837, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Max's Seafood
Cafe, 176 F.3d at 677) (internal quotation marks
for reconsideration are not designed to provide litigants
with a 'second bite at the apple.'"
Cole's Wexford Hotel, Inc. v. UPMC & Highmark
Inc., No. CV 10-1609, 2017 WL 432947, at *2 (W.D. Pa.
Feb. 1, 2017) (quoting Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas
Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995)). "A motion
for reconsideration is not to be used to relitigate, or
'rehash/ issues the court already decided, or to ask a
district court to rethink a decision it, rightly or wrongly,
already made." Cole's Wexford Hotel, WL
432947, at *2 (citing Williams v. City of
Pittsburgh, 32 F.Supp.2d 236, 238 (W.D. Pa. 1998)).
"By reason of the interest in finality, at least at the
district court level, motions for reconsideration should be
sparingly granted." Cole's Wexford Hotel,
WL 432947, at *1.
contends that an intervening change in controlling law
mandates that this Court grant summary judgment in favor of
Defendant on Plaintiff's punitive damages claim.
(See ECF No. 65 at 3.) Defendant relies on two
recent cases: (1) Marsh v. Norfolk S., Inc., 243
F.Supp.3d 557 (M.D. Pa. 2017); and (2) In re Paulsboro
Derailment Cases, 2017 WL 3700902 (3d Cir. Aug. 28,
2017). As explained below, these cases have not changed
controlling the law on punitive damages. Accordingly, the
Court will deny Defendant's Motion.
Defendant's Reliance on Marsh ...