United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
E. Jones III United States District Judge
pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for
Reconsideration, (Doc. 63), of our order denying
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 62). For
the reasons that follow, we shall grant Defendants'
Motion for Reconsideration.
case involved a claimed breach of fiduciary duty pursuant to
§ 409(a) of the Employment Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a), the facts of which
were fully set forth in our order denying summary judgment.
(Doc. 62). In sum, Plaintiff, Daria Kovarikova, alleged that
Defendants, through agents and co-fiduciaries, misrepresented
to her that her retirement benefit plan would not change or
would only change to her advantage when Defendants terminated
the residency program of which she was a part. Plaintiff
claimed she relied on the misrepresentation and suspended her
search for a new job under the mistaken belief that, in
addition to receiving a retention bonus for remaining
employed with Defendants, her existing benefits would not
ultimately filed a motion for summary judgment, which we
denied. In the memorandum accompanying our order, we found
that the representations Plaintiff relied on were not
material at the time because changes to the retirement plan
were not yet being seriously considered. However, we found
that Defendants had a duty to correct Plaintiff's
misunderstanding once the plan changes were being
now seek reconsideration of our order. The motion has been
fully briefed, (Docs. 64, 65, 66), and is ripe for our
STANDARD OF REVIEW
purpose of a motion for reconsideration 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). Thus, the moving party must show
“(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2)
the availability of new evidence that was not available when
the court granted the [underlying motion]; or (3) the need to
correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice.” Max's Seafood Café
ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677
(3d Cir. 1999). “‘A motion for reconsideration is
not to be used as a means to reargue matters already argued
and disposed of or as an attempt to relitigate a point of
disagreement between the Court and the litigant.'”
Rearick v. Spanier, No. 4:11-cv-624, 2011 WL
5920713, at *1 (M.D.Pa. Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Ogden v.
Keystone Residence, 226 F.Supp.2d 588, 606 (M.D.Pa.
2002)). “[T]he reconsideration of a judgment is an
extraordinary remedy, and such motions should be granted
sparingly.” Id. (citing D'Angio v.
Borough of Nescopeck, 56 F.Supp.2d 502, 504 (M.D.Pa.
acknowledge from the outset that their motion is untimely.
Per our Local Rule 7.10, motions for reconsideration must be
filed within fourteen days of the date of the pertinent
order. Defendants' motion, in this case, was filed seven
days late. Plaintiff argues that, on this basis alone,
Defendants' motion should be denied. Defendants argue
that the delay was excusable and Plaintiff is not prejudiced
by the late filing. We will begin by considering the
timeliness issue and then proceed to analyze the merits of
Timeliness of Motion
noted above, Defendants' motion was seven days late.
“Noncompliance with a local rule governing timeliness
is enough to warrant denial of the requested relief.”
Nittany Outdoor Advertising, LLC v. College
Township, 179 F.Supp.3d 436, 439 (M.D.Pa. 2016).
Nevertheless, “courts are permitted, where appropriate,
to accept late filings even where caused by inadvertence,
mistake, or carelessness, as well as by intervening
circumstances beyond a party's control.” In re
Cendant Corp. PRIDES Litigation, 235 F.3d 176, 181 (3d
Cir. 2000). This is commonly referred to as an
“excusable neglect” analysis.
United States Supreme Court had delineated four factors in
conducting an “excusable neglect” analysis:
“the danger of prejudice to the [nonmovant], the length
of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings,
the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the
reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant
acted in good faith.” Id. (quoting Pioneer
Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited
Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). Defendants
explain that their late filing is a result of an inadvertent
diary mistake. We fail to see how Plaintiff is prejudiced by
a motion for reconsideration filed seven days late. As
Defendants correctly note, pretrial deadlines had been
continued to accommodate medical treatment for
Plaintiff's lead counsel. Furthermore, the delay was
merely one week and has little to no impact on the judicial
proceedings. Finally, as noted, the delay was due to a
careless mistake, not to anything suggesting bad faith. We
find, therefore, that the seven-day delay is excusable and
shall consider the merits of Defendants' motion.
Merits of ...