Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. G-09-036.
April 28, 2010
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the "Motion to Reconsider Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" of Plaintiff Dynell Jones; the Motion will be denied.
On March 29, 2010, following this Court's denial of Plaintiff's Motion for an extension, which was filed in order to permit Jones to seek a revocation of Calpine's bankruptcy discharge which stood as a bar to his claims for severance benefits and bonuses, Jones filed the instant Motion. The Motion for an extension was denied due to Jones' lack of diligence in requesting the revocation. In his Motion for Reconsideration Jones simply offers additional facts in support of the extension, however, the fact remains that as of April 23, 2010, Jones had still not filed any request with the Bankruptcy Court. A Motion for Reconsideration should not be used as a means to argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to the Court in the matter previously decided. Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3rd Cir. 1995)
It is, therefore, ORDERED that the "Motion to Reconsider Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" (Instrument no. 42) of Plaintiff Dynell Jones is DENIED.