Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-1303.
October 14, 2004
MEMORANDUM
Presently before this Court is Defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of this Court's August 30, 2004 Order pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(g). For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be denied.
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(g) allows a party to make a motion for reconsideration. "The purpose of the 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). Because the federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of their judgements, motions for reconsideration will be granted sparingly. Cont'l Casualty Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995). A district court will grant a party's motion for reconsideration in only three situations: (1) the availability of new evidence not previously available, (2) an intervening change in controlling law, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. New Chemic (U.S.), Inc. v. Fine Grinding Corp., 948 F. Supp. 17, 18-19 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
A motion for reconsideration is not intended to provide a losing party with a second bite at the apple. The motion "is not properly grounded on a request that a court reconsider repetitive arguments that have been fully examined by the court." Tobin v. Gen. Elec. Co., Civ. Act. No. 95-4003, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 693, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 1998). The motion "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) (citations and internal alterations omitted).
Defendants raise several objections, including an objection to the Court's use of the word "gap" to characterize the competing interpretations of the Proposal offered by the parties. Defendants argue that the agreement clearly differentiates between the first year of the agreement and the subsequent years of the agreement. The Court is unable to agree. At the very least, there is sufficient ambiguity in the wording of the Proposal regarding the relationship between the parties at the beginning of the second year to preclude Defendants from obtaining judgment on the pleadings. The question remains as to whether, had he successfully finished the first year, Barsky would enter into the second year with some form of employment guarantee. There are a multitude of possible interpretations of the Proposal, and without additional evidence none is definitive. As a result, judgment on the pleadings remains inappropriate, and Defendants' motion for reconsideration will be denied.
An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of October, 2004, upon consideration of Defendants', Beasley Mezzanine Holdings, L.L.C., and Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc., Motion for Partial Reconsideration of this Court's August 20, 2004 Order (Doc. No. 13), and the Response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.