Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-6675.
January 4, 2005
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of January, 2005, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and Defendant's Response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence.Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3rd Cir. 1985);Frederick v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 926 F.Supp. 63, 64 (E.D.Pa. 1996). A party filing a motion to reconsider must rely on at least one of the following grounds: (1) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; (2) an intervening change in the controlling law; or (3) the need to correct an error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Huls America, Inc., 921 F.Supp. 278, 279 (E.D.Pa. 1995); Prousi v. Cruisers Division of KCS International, Inc., 1997 WL 793000 (E.D.Pa. 1991) at *3. Where evidence is not newly discovered, a party may not submit that evidence in support of a motion for reconsideration.Harso, supra, citing DeLong Corp. v. Raymond International, Inc., 622 F.2d 1135, 1139-40 (3rd Cir. 1980). See Also: North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3rd Cir. 1995).
In applying these principles in this case, Plaintiff has presented no new evidence, there has been intervening changes in the law and we discern no manifest errors of law in our Memorandum and Order of December 2, 2004. For these reasons, the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.