Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-3520.
March 29, 2004
ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of March, 2004, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket # 106), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED.
Defendant moves for reconsideration of this Court's February 2, 2004 Memorandum and Order regarding Plaintiff's motion for satisfaction of judgment and for attorney's fees and costs. "`The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.'" Rosenbaum v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, Civ. A. No. 01-6758, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15652 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 8, 2003) (quoting Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1986)). "Generally, a motion for reconsideration will only be granted on one of the following three grounds: (1) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new evidence, which was not previously available, has become available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice."Blue Mt. Mushroom, Co. v. Monterey Mushroom, 246 F. Supp.2d 394, 398 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (internal quotation omitted). Reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources. Moyer v. Italwork, Civ. A. No. 95-2264, 1997 WL 312178, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 3, 1997).
Defendant argues that the Court made manifest errors of law and fact in its February 2, 2004 Memorandum. Defendant first argues that the Court erred in reimbursing Plaintiff for the expenses it incurred in procuring crew liability insurance on the Ahmetbey during the period of its arrest. However, Defendant has failed to provide adequate support for its assertion that the Court committed legal error. Defendant also argues that the Court erred in reimbursing Plaintiff for the costs of the law firm of Ehlermann Jeschonek in researching areas of German law related to the case.
Defendant argues that, as it filed a notice of its intention to utilize Turkish law (but not German law) pursuant to Rule 44.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure early in these proceedings, it was unreasonable for Plaintiff to assume that Defendant would later attempt to raise defenses relating to German law and prepare accordingly. Defendant's argument appears to rest on the assumption that Defendant waived its right to subsequently file a notice of its intent to utilize German law when it filed its notice of intent to utilize Turkish law. However, Defendant has provided absolutely no support for this assertion.
Next Defendant complains that the Court made various errors of fact in its opinion. However, Defendant points to only one specific factual finding which it claims is erroneous. Specifically, Defendant takes issue with the Court's statement in footnote two of the opinion that Defendant raised a forum non conveniens argument for the first time on the first day of the trial. Upon re-examination of the record, it is clear that, while Defendant never made a forum non conveniens argument in a written motion to the Court, it did raise such an argument orally at a hearing held on August 6, 2003. Accordingly, the Court acknowledges the inaccuracy of the statement in footnote two of the opinion. However, as made clear in the Court's opinion, this footnote merely set forth but one example of the many instances in which Defendant made last minute submissions to the Court and opposing counsel. Indeed, Defendant essentially admits in its motion for reconsideration that it engaged in this process, although it contends that it was forced to do so because the factual situation in this case was constantly in flux. Accordingly, the Court's conclusion that it was reasonable for Plaintiff to prepare for Defendant's possible use of German law defenses remains the same regardless of the accuracy of the Court's statement in footnote two.
Finally, Defendant complains that the Court failed to rule upon Defendant's ability to submit claims to Plaintiff regarding alleged injuries to crew members which occurred while the ship was under arrest in this district. In Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Satisfaction of Judgment, Defendant stated that, if the Court reimbursed Plaintiff for the expenses it incurred in procuring crew liability insurance, Defendant would "reserve the right" to submit claims for medical costs incurred by crewmembers while the ship was under arrest. (Def's Resp. to Mot. Satisfaction of Judgment, Docket # 88, at 9.) Nothing in the Court's February 2, 2004 Order or Memorandum extinguished Defendant's right to submit such claims. Accordingly, there is no basis upon which to modify the Court's order or memorandum in this regard.
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.