Sander v. Light Action Inc.

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING 59 MOTION for Reconsideration re 58 Order filed by Leslie L. Sander. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 5/18/12. (ntl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LESLIE L. SANDER,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 10-684-LPS

v.

LIGHT ACTION, INC.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Leslie L. Sander's Motion for Reconsideration. (D.I.
59) ("Motion") By her Motion, Sander asks the Court to reconsider its March 21, 2012
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying her motion for partial summary judgment and leave to
file a second amended complaint, and granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (D.I.
57; D.l. 58) Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED.
I.

LEGAL STANDARDS
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.5, a motion for reconsideration should be granted only

"sparingly." The decision to grant such a motion lies squarely within the discretion of the district
court. See Dentsply Int'l, Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 42 F. Supp. 2d 385,419 (D. Del. 1999);
Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1241 (D. Del. 1990). These types of motions
are granted only if the court has patently misunderstood a party, made a decision outside the
adversarial issues presented by the parties, or made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.
See Shering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 293,295 (D. Del. 1998); Brambles, 735 F.
Supp. at 1241. "A motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a request that a court
rethink a decision already made." Smith v. Meyers, 2009 WL 51195928, at *1 (D. Del. Dec. 30,

I
I

i

i
4
'~

i

l

2009); see also Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough ofGlendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa.
1993). It is not an opportunity to "accomplish repetition of arguments that were or should have

I

I

been presented to the court previously." Karr v. Castle, 768 F. Supp. 1087, 1093 (D. Del. 1991).
A motion for reconsideration may be granted only if the movant can show at least one of
the following: (i) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) the availability of
new evidence not available when the court made its decision; or (iii) there is a need to correct a
clear error of law or fact to prevent manifest injustice. See Max's Seafood Cafe by LouAnn, Inc.
v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). However, in no instance should reconsideration

be granted if it would not result in amendment of an order. See Schering Corp., 25 F. Supp. 2d at
295.
II.

DISCUSSION

In her Motion, Sander contends the Court erred in its finding based upon the record that
Plaintiff was paid a "guaranteed base salary of $60,000," and therefore erroneously dismissed
Counts I and II of her Complaint seeking overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. (See D.I.

59~~

1-5) Plaintiff further submits the Court erroneously dismissed her Count III

retaliation claim. (See id.

~~

6-7) Having considered Sander's Motion, and response thereto, the

Court continues to believe, for the reasons set forth in its Memorandum Opinion, there is no
basis in the record to make any finding other than that Plaintiff was paid a guaranteed base salary
of $60,000 annually, and finds nothing in the Motion that would justify the relief Sander now
seeks with respect to her retaliation claim as pled. (See D.I. 57) Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion
is DENIED.

i
J

I

l

May 18,2012
UNITED s"TATES DISTRICT JUDGE