Opinion
Civil Action No. 08-1706.
December 2, 2010
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: ECF No. 87
Plaintiff Yunik has filed "objections" (ECF No. 87) to an order entered by the undersigned that granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Because objections are not properly filed to an order entered by a District Judge, the Court will liberally construe Plaintiff's objections as a motion for reconsideration. Construed as such, it will be denied.
"The purpose of a 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 Ctr. 1985). "The standard plaintiff must meet to prevail on a motion for reconsideration is high[.]" Berry v. Jacobs IMC, LLC, 99 F.App'x 405, 410 (3d Cir. 2004). In order to merit the grant of a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must establish: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). After considering Plaintiff's arguments, Plaintiff fails to meet the high standards for meriting the grant of a motion for reconsideration, Accordingly, the following order is entered:
AND NOW, this 2nd day of December 2010, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff's "objections", construed as a motion for reconsideration, is DENIED.