Summit Sheet Metal, LLC v. Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 44
Filing
44
MEMORANDUM ORDER striking 40 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting 41 Motion to Strike. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 2/17/15 (jam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SUMMIT SHEET METAL, LLC,
CONSOLIDATED TO:
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-13-1623
v.
(JUDGE CAPUTO)
SHEET METAL WORKERS’
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
LOCAL UNION NO. 44,
Defendant.
SHEET METAL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
LOCAL UNION NO. 44,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-13-2079
(JUDGE CAPUTO)
Plaintiff,
v.
SUMMIT SHEET METAL, LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before me are Summit Sheet Metal, LLC’s (“Summit”) Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 40) and Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union
No. 44's (“Local 44”) Motion to Strike Summit’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 41.) By
Memorandum and Order dated January 13, 2015, I granted Local 44 attorneys’ fees and
costs in the amount of $5,064.03. (Docs. 38; 39.) Summit, by motion filed on January 22,
2015, requested reconsideration of the award of attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. 40.)
Summit’s motion for reconsideration, however, was not accompanied by a supporting brief.
As such, Local 44 filed its motion to strike and supporting brief on January 29, 2015 (Docs.
41; 42) based on Summit’s failure to file a supporting brief in accordance with this Court’s
Local Rules. Thereafter, on February 2, 2015, Summit filed a brief in support of its motion
for reconsideration. (Doc. 43.)
Local 44's motion to strike will be granted. Middle District of Pennsylvania Local Rule
7.10 provides, in pertinent part: “Any motion for reconsideration or reargument must be
accompanied by a supporting brief and filed within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the
order concerned.” M.D. Pa. L.R. 7.10. Summit failed to comply with the Court’s Local Rules
as its motion for reconsideration was not accompanied by a supporting brief in accordance
with Local Rule 7.10. Accordingly, Local 44's motion to strike will be granted, and Summit’s
motion for reconsideration will be stricken from the record.
Moreover, even if Summit complied with Local Rule 7.10, reconsideration would not
be warranted. Reconsideration may be granted if the moving party establishes at least one
of the following grounds: “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of
new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion; or (3) the need to
correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max's Seafood Café, by
Lou Ann, Inc., v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). Summit argues that
reconsideration is warranted on the basis that Local 44 should be required to pay its own
attorneys’ fees pursuant to the American Rule. Here, however, the parties’ contractual
agreement expressly authorized fee shifting, thus rendering the award of attorneys’ fees
and costs in favor of Local 44 appropriate. (Docs. 29; 38.) Therefore, even if Summit’s
motion for reconsideration was filed in accordance with the Court’s Local Rules,
reconsideration would not be warranted.
Accordingly, Local 44's Motion to Strike Summit’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.
41) is GRANTED. Summit’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 40) is STRICKEN from the
record.
February 17, 2015
Date
/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?