United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
CAILIN NICOLE SOLOFF Pro Se, DYLAN MICHAEL SOLOFF Pro Se As Beneficiaries of The 1978 Irrevocable Deed Of Trust Meghan Ellen Holtz Soloff, The 1994 Irrevocable Deed of Trust of Meghan Ellen Holtz Soloff, A.M.M.T- A Family Limited Partnership, Custodial Account of Cailin Nicole Soloff, Custodial Account, Plaintiffs,
EDWARD J. AUFMAN, WILLIAM J. GAFFEY, AUFMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT
J. Schwab United States District Judge
the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider its Order
entered at doc. no. 63, denying Plaintiffs'
Request that the Court Strike Defendants' Affirmatives
Defenses. See doc. no. 64. Embedded within
Plaintiffs' Motion is also a Motion that this Court
appoint Plaintiffs' an attorney. Id. Defendants have
file a Response to this Motion. See doc.no. 65.
purpose of a Motion for Reconsideration is to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence. Howard Hess Dental Laboratories Inc. v.
Dentsply Intern., Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir.
2010), citing Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d
906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Generally, a Motion for
Reconsideration will only be granted on one of the following
three grounds: (1) if there has been an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) if new evidence, which was not
previously available, has become available; or (3) if it is
necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent
manifest injustice. See, Howard Hess Dental, 602
F.3d at 251, citing Max's Seafood Café by Lou
Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.
may not grant a Motion for Reconsideration when the motion
simply restyles or rehashes issues previously presented.
Pahler v. City of Wilkes Barre, 207 F.Supp.2d 341,
355 (M.D. Pa. 2001); see also Carroll v. Manning,
414 Fed.Appx. 396, 398 (3d Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of
“motion for reconsideration and ‘petition' in
support thereof appears to merely reiterate the allegations
made in the . . . petition and does not set forth any basis
justifying reconsideration.”); and Grigorian v.
Attorney General of U.S., 282 Fed.Appx. 180, 182 (3d
Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of Motion to Reconsider because
it “does nothing more than reiterate the arguments
underlying his motion to reinstate the appeal.”).
motion for reconsideration “addresses only factual and
legal matters that the Court may have overlooked . . . . It
is improper on a motion for reconsideration to ask the Court
to rethink what [it] had already thought through rightly or
wrongly.” Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of
Glendon, 836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993)
(internal citation and quotes omitted). Because federal
courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments,
motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly.
Rossi v. Schlarbaum, 600 F.Supp.2d 650, 670 (E.D.
Motion to Reconsider Court Order no. 63 Denying
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Affirmative
to the instant Motion, and returning to the three bases upon
which a Motion for Reconsideration may be granted, Plaintiffs
do not argue that there has been an intervening change in
controlling law, nor do they present new evidence, not
previously available, alleging it has become available.
Finally, Plaintiffs do not specifically argue that
reconsideration of this Court's prior Order (doc. no.
63) is necessary to correct a clear error of law in
order to prevent manifest injustice. Because Plaintiffs fail
to meet any of the bases upon which reconsideration can be
granted the Court DENIES the portion of the
Motion requesting reconsideration of its Order entered at
doc. no. 63.
Motion to Reconsider Court Order no. 26 Denying without
Prejudice Plaintiffs' Motion for Pro Bono
Plaintiffs' instant Motion also requests, for a second
time, that they be appointed pro bono counsel to represent
them, “in Pennsylvania.” Previously, this Court
denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Waive their Pro Rata Share
of the Neutral's Cost (see doc. no. 25) and
simultaneously denied Plaintiffs' Motion for a Pro Bono
Attorney to represent Plaintiffs at the ADR Early Neutral
Evaluation (See doc. no. 22). Doc. no. 26.
As the Court explained in Order no. 26, it was denying
Plaintiffs' request for a free ENE process and for a free
attorney at the ENE, but would be willing to reconsider
appointing a pro bono attorney for Plaintiffs after payments
were made to retain the Neutral Evaluator.
instant Motion now requests, five days prior to the ENE, that
a pro bono attorney be provided to them. Given the extremely
late nature of the request and the fact that this case
involves a complex matter and a lengthy factual and legal
history, it would be impossible for a pro bono attorney to be
first appointed, run a conflict check, and adequately learn
the factual and legal intricacies of this matter in order to
be able to provide sound legal advice and advocacy by June
29, 2018. However, given that the purpose of the upcoming ENE
is for the Neutral to provide the Parties with an objective,
impartial review of: (1) the claims asserted by Plaintiffs,
as well as (2) the defenses asserted by Defendants,
settlement will likely not be discussed and thus, advocacy
will not be needed. The ultimate goal of the Neutral at this
upcoming ENE is to convey to the Parties the strengths and
weaknesses of their respective claims and defenses and invite
discussion openly, in a non-confrontational forum. Therefore,
the need to retain an advocate for Plaintiffs is not germane
to the upcoming ENE proceedings. For all of these reasons,
the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs'
request for a pro bono attorney.
in an effort to assist the Parties and Plaintiffs,
especially, the Court hereby ORDERS that the
Neutral retain or hire a court reporter or stenographer to
attend this ENE on June 29, 2018, to record all that is said
by the Neutral and the Parties. The Parties will equally bear
the full cost of the attendance of the court reporter or
stenographer. (This cost is in addition to the Neutral fee,
which has already been paid in full, equally, by both
Parties.) Although this transcript will not be filed on the
docket, it will assist the Parties accurately recall what is
discussed by one another and the Neutral during the ENE. By
having a full and complete record of this proceeding, if the
Parties wish to pursue mediation or some other form of
settlement prior to the trial of this matter, this transcript
may prove to be valuable to the Parties' mediator.