United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Paradise Baxter District Judge
September 12, 2019, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion
and Order [ECF No. 79] granting Defendants' motions to
dismiss [ECF Nos. 39, 71]. Now before the Court is Plaintiffs
motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 80].
the instant motion seeks reconsideration of this Court's
Order, it will be construed as a request for reconsideration
pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. 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). A motion
for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) must therefore rely on one of three grounds: (1) an
intervening change in the law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice. N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA
Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995). A
motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded in a
request for a district court to rethink a decision it has
already rightly or wrongly made. Williams v.
Pittsburgh, 32 F.Supp.2d 236, 238 (W.D.Pa. 1998).
Litigants are cautioned to '"evaluate whether what
may seem to be a clear error of law is in fact simply a point
of disagreement between the Court and the
litigant.'" Wave v. First Citizen's
Nat'l Bank, 846 F.Supp. 310, 314 n.3 (M.D.Pa. 1994)
(quoting Atkins v. I Marathon LeTourneau
Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D.Miss. 1990). Motions for
reconsideration should not relitigate issues already resolved
by the court and should not be used to advance additional
arguments which could have been made by the movant before
judgment. Reich v. Compton, 834 F.Supp. 753, 755
(E.D.Pa. 1993) aff din part, rev'd in part, 57
F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff does not indicate which subsection of Rule 59 forms
the basis for his requested relief, it is apparent that he
believes the Court made factual and/or legal errors that must
be corrected to prevent manifest injustice. Upon review,
however, Plaintiffs objections reiterate the same legal
arguments and factual allegations he raised in his previous
documents filed with the Court, all of which were fully
considered by the undersigned in adopting the Report and
Recommendation dated August 8, 2018. Requests for a
"second bite of the apple" are not an appropriate
basis for relief on a motion for reconsideration.
See, e.g., Boone v. Daughtery, No.
12-1333, 2013 WL 5836329, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2013)
("Motions for reconsideration are not designed to
provide litigants with a second bite at the apple.")
(citing Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52
F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995)). As such, Plaintiffs motion
for relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) must be denied.
extent that Plaintiff may intend to seek relief pursuant to
Rule 60(b), his arguments are similarly unavailing.
"Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final
judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited
set of circumstances ...." Atkinson v. Middlesex
Cnty., 610 Fed.Appx. 109, 112 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005)). Those
circumstances are: "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that,
with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in
time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud ...
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4)
the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment
that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no long equitable; or (6) any other reason
that justifies relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); Zahl v.
Harper, 403 Fed.Appx. 729, 734 (3d Cir. 2010). "The
movant under Rule 60(b) 'bears a heavy burden."'
Bohus v. Beloff, 950 F.2d 919, 930 (3d Cir. 1991)
(quoting Plisco v. Union R. Co., 379 F.2d 15, 17 (3d
attack on the factual and legal merits of this Court's
opinion fall under Rule 60(b)(6), the catch-all provision,
which "may only be invoked upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances." Coltec Indus., Inc. v. Hobgood,
280 F.3d 262, 273 (3d Cir. 2002). As with Rule 59(e), a
motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) "may not be used as a
second bite at the apple" or to "relitigate a point
of disagreement between the Court and the litigant."
United States v. Fausnaught 2018 WL 1911247, at *3
(M.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 2018) (citing Jones v. Shannon,
2013 WL 6021956, at *7 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2013)). As noted
above, Plaintiffs repeated objections to the legal and
factual findings set forth in this Court's opinion fall
squarely within this category and must be rejected.
reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs Motion for
Reconsideration of this Court's Order [ECF No. 79]
granting Defendants' ...