From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Smith

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 10, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-1382 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-1382.

January 10, 2011


ORDER


AND NOW, this 10th day of January, 2011, upon consideration of defendants' motion for partial reconsideration (Doc. 93) of this court's order of October 1, 2010, (Doc. 92), and it appearing that defendants fail to demonstrate one of three major grounds for reconsideration ((1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence [not available previously]; [or], (3) the need to correct clear error [of law] or prevent manifest injustice.'")), North River Ins. Co. v. Cigna Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see Waye v. First Citizen's Nat'l Bank, 846 F. Supp. 310, 314 (M.D. Pa.) ("A motion for reconsideration is not to be used to reargue matters already argued and disposed of."), aff'd, 31 F.3d 1174 (3d Cir. 1994); see also Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. Publ'g Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216, 1220 (D.N.J. 1993) (citations omitted) ("A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and `recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.'"), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The motion for reconsideration (Doc. 92) is DENIED.
2. The matter will be set for trial at the convenience of the court.


Summaries of

Williams v. Smith

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 10, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-1382 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2011)
Case details for

Williams v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:KEITH A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. JOSEPH SMITH, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Jan 10, 2011

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-1382 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2011)