Kurschinske v. Meadville Forging Company

Full title: VIRGINIA KURSCHINSKE, Plaintiff, v. MEADVILLE FORGING COMPANY, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Aug 1, 2011

Civil Action No. 06-87 Erie (W.D. Pa. Aug. 1, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 06-87 Erie.

August 1, 2011

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SEAN McLAUGHLIN, District Judge

Presently pending before the Court is a "Motion for Reconsideration [pursuant to] Rule 59(e)" [ECF No. 110] filed by Plaintiff, Virginia Kurschinske ("Kurschinske").¹ In the Court's Memorandum Opinion of June 10, 2011, Kurschinske, who is proceeding pro se, was advised as follows:

1 In point of fact, this is Kurschinske's third motion requesting that I reconsider my previous Memorandum Opinions and Orders of January 19, 2011 [ECF No. 94] and June 10, 2011 [ECF No. 109], wherein I concluded that she was collaterally estopped from claiming entitlement to a Judgment in the amount of $46,763.21 [ECF No. 63].

Kurschinske's entitlement to a portion of the attorney's fees has been exhaustively litigated in this Court. Plaintiff is instructed that if she intends to litigate this issue, her appropriate remedy is to perfect a timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

[ECF No. 109 p. 6 n. 5]. Despite this previous admonition, Kurschinske remains unwilling to take "no" for an answer from this Court as evidenced by the instant motion.

The Court may grant a motion for reconsideration if the moving party shows: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence which was not available when the court issued its order; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent a manifest injustice.Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3^rd Cir. 2010); Max's Seafood Café by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3^rd Cir. 1999).

Having reviewed Kurschinske's most recent filing, I find no basis, under the above stated standard, to grant her requested relief. Consequently, her motion is denied. Once again, Kurschinske is advised that her exclusive remedy is to pursue a timely appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rather than to continue to file motions for reconsideration with this Court.

AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2011, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the "Motion for Reconsideration [pursuant to] Rule 59(e)" [ECF No. 110] is DENIED.