ACKOUREY v. MOHAN'S CUSTOM TAILORS, INC. et al

Filing 35

ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CORRECTION AND MODIFICATION 27 AND RESPONSES THERETO 29 , 31 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THE MOTION IS GRANTED. A CORRECTED MEMORANDUM ON PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS ATTACHED TO THIS ORDER AND REPLACES THE MEMORANDUM DATED 8/29/2011 25 . SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 1/5/12. 1/6/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD C. ACKOUREY, JR.
d/b/a GRAPHIC STYLES/STYLES
INTERNATIONAL LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
MOHAN’S CUSTOM TAILORS, INC.
and MIKE RAMCHANDANI,
Defendants.

: CIVIL ACTION
:
:
:
:
:
:
: NO. 09-cv-5454
:
:
:
:
ORDER

AND NOW, this

5th

day of January, 2012, upon

consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Correction and
Modification (ECF No. 27) and responses thereto (ECF Nos. 29,
31), it is hereby ORDERED the Motion is GRANTED.

A corrected

Memorandum on Partial Summary Judgment is attached to this Order
and replaces the Memorandum dated August 29, 2011 (ECF No. 25).1
1

Plaintiff alleges the Court’s Memorandum pursuant to an Order granting
the defendants partial summary judgment requires corrections to three
statements. Plaintiff correctly points out that a drafting error was made on
page 8 of the Memorandum and the word “not” was omitted. (Pl.’s Mem. 1-2.)
The revised Memorandum attached to this Order contains the omitted “not” to
make the statement consistent with the Court’s opinion. Plaintiff’s other two
proposed corrections, if accepted, would alter the court’s interpretation of
the Copyright Act and lead to an entirely different legal conclusion. Thus,
these proposed corrections are more aptly classified as arguments in support
of a motion for reconsideration. “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration
. . . is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Howard Hess Dental Labs. Inc. v. Dentsply Intern.,
Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Max's Seafood Café v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). “Accordingly, a judgment may be
altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of
the following grounds: (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.” Id. (quoting same). Plaintiff
does not argue there has been an intervening change in the controlling law,
nor that there is new evidence. Rather, Plaintiff contends the Court reached
the wrong legal conclusion. Plaintiff rejects the Court’s reasoned finding
that any alleged infringement by Defendants of copyrighted works found within

BY THE COURT:

s/J. Curtis Joyner
J. CURTIS JOYNER, C.J.

the pages of the “Styles International Best of Seasons 2006" stylebook are
redressable by a single statutory damage award, at most. A motion for
reconsideration “addresses only factual and legal matters that the Court may
have overlooked. It is improper on a motion for reconsideration to ask the
Court to rethink what it had already thought through-rightly or wrongly.”
Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa.
1993) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). The Court has
already given Plaintiff’s legal arguments thorough consideration and Plaintiff
has not provided the Court with a sufficient reason to reconsider its holding.
Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is denied.