United States Of America v. Bogart et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying the Bogarts' motion for reconsideration 22 & granting Bogarts' request for addt'l 30 days to obtain cnsl. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 12/05/12. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DUSTIN BOGART, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-cv-0347
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of December, upon consideration of the motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 22) filed November 12, 2012, by Defendants Dustin Bogart
and Marcy A. Bogart (“the Bogarts”), asking this court to reconsider its September
17, 2012 Order (Doc. 20) denying the Bogarts’ motion for consolidation, and the
court recognizing that, “[t]he purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence,” Harsco v.
Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), and further, that a court should grant a
motion for reconsideration only “if the moving party establishes one of three
grounds: (1) there is newly available evidence; (2) an intervening change in the
controlling law; or (3) there is a need to correct a clear error of law or prevent
manifest injustice,” General Instrument Corp. of Delaware v. Nu-Tek Electronics &
Mfg. Inc., 3 F. Supp. 2d 602, 606 (E.D.Pa. 1998) (citations omitted), and it further
appearing that “[a] motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a
request that the Court simply rethink a decision it has already made,” Douris v.
Schweiker, 229 F. Supp. 2d 391, 408 (E.D.Pa. 2002) (quoting Glendon Energy Co. v.

Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D.Pa. 1993), and the court
concluding that motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored, Collins v. D.R.
Horton, Inc., 252 F.Supp.2d 936, 938 (D. Ariz. 2003), and it appearing that the
Bogart’s motion is based on the argument that Pennsylvania provides a more
convenient forum, however, the court finding this is not a proper basis for
reconsideration as the underlying actions in this case involve separate properties
located in Pennsylvania and Tennessee, and therefore, the respective states are the
proper venue for the separate actions, see United States v. Joling, 2010 WL 437980,
at *1 (D. Or. 2010) (the proper venue for the action is where the res is located), and
the court concluding that none of the General Instrument factors are applicable, it
is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Bogarts’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 22) is DENIED.

2.

The Bogarts request for an additional thirty (30) days to obtain counsel
is GRANTED.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge