Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe

Filing 70

ORDER denying Atty Fiore's motion for reconsideration 57 of memo & order 52 53 of 10/25/16. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 12/8/16. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

:
:
Plaintiff and Counterclaim :
Defendant,
:
:
v.
:
:
JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP
:
Address 71.58.216.197,
:
:
Defendant, Counterclaim :
Plaintiff, and Third-Party :
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
CHRISTOPHER FIORE, BRIGHAM
:
FIELD, and COLETTE PELISSIER:
FIELD,
:
:
Third-Party Defendants
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-2281
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of December, 2016, upon consideration of the
motion (Doc. 57) for reconsideration filed by Christopher Fiore, Esquire (“Attorney
Fiore”), wherein Attorney Fiore seeks reconsideration of the court’s memorandum
and order (Docs. 52-53) of October 25, 2016, granting plaintiff John Doe’s request to
disqualify Attorney Fiore as counsel in this matter and specifically finding that John
Doe’s counterclaims and third-party claims create potential conflicts of interest
between Attorney Fiore, a third-party defendant, and the parties he seeks to
represent herein, and the court emphasizing that the purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is to present newly discovered evidence or to correct manifest
errors of law or fact, see Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677-78 (3d

Cir. 1999); Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), and noting that
the court possesses an inherent power to reconsider its orders “when it is
consonant with justice to do so,” United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir.
1973); Alea N. Am. Ins. Co. v. Salem Masonry Co. 301 F. App’x 119, 121 (3d Cir.
2008), but that such relief is to be granted “sparingly,” Montanez v. York City, Civ.
No. 12-CV-1530, 2014 WL 3534567, at *7 (M.D. Pa. July 16, 2014) (quoting Cont’l
Casualty Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995)), and
that a party may not invoke a motion for reconsideration as a means to relitigate
matters already resolved by the court, see Boretsky v. Governor of N.J., 433 F.
App’x 73, 78 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949,
957 (11th Cir. 2007)), nor is a motion for reconsideration “an opportunity for a party
to present previously available evidence or new arguments,” Federico v. Charterers
Mut. Assurance Ass’n Ltd., 158 F. Supp. 2d 565, 577 (E.D. Pa. 2001); see also Harsco
Corp., 779 F.2d at 909, and it appearing that Attorney Fiore bases his motion on
arguments identical to or expanding upon those previously raised before––and
rejected by––the undersigned, and neither identifies nor substantiates a clear error
of law in the court’s prior decision, and accordingly fails to satisfy the exacting
standard of review applied to motions for reconsideration, it is hereby ORDERED
that Attorney Fiore’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 57) of the memorandum and
order (Docs. 52-53) dated October 25, 2016 is DENIED.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania