TAYLOR v. MESSMER et al

Filing 77

ORDER denying 63 Motion for Reconsideration and Modification filed by CAROLE L. TAYLOR. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 0/07/2011. (bsc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CAROLE L. TAYLOR,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MARGARET MESSMER; MARTHA MESSMER, )
Executrix of the Estate of Patricia O’Kane;
)
ANTHONY FLATI and RICHARD FLATI,
)
Co-Executors of the Estate of THERESA FLATI, )
and NEGLEY PARK HOMEOWNER’S
)
ASSOCIATION COUNCIL,
)
)
Defendants.
)

02: 09-cv-1116

MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT
Presently pending before the Court for disposition is the MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND MODIFICATION filed by Plaintiff, Carole L. Taylor (Document
No. 63), the REPLY and AMENDED REPLY TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
filed by Defendant Negley Park Homeowners Association Council (Document Nos. 68 and 75)
and the MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION filed by Defendants Margaret Messmer; Martha Messmer, Executrix of
the Estate of Patricia O’Kane; and Anthony Flati and Richard Flati, Executors of the Estate of
Theresa Flati (Document No. 74).
Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate its Memorandum Opinion and Order of
Court entered August 9, 2011, in which the Court directed that Plaintiff shall pay $42,318.97 in
attorney fees and costs.
The Court finds and rules that Plaintiff has presented no extraordinary
circumstances or arguments which meet the high standard required to justify reconsideration.

Generally, a motion for reconsideration will only be granted if: (1) there has been an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) new evidence, which was not previously available, has become
available; or (3) necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Harsco
Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 47 U.S. 1171 (1986). Plaintiff
has pointed to no intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error of law, or
manifest injustice.
Plaintiff continues to advance the same arguments that she made in response to
the motions for attorneys fees. Said arguments were previously given due consideration, but not
credited by this Court. Motions for reconsideration are not designed to provide litigants with a
second bite at the apple. Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir.
1995). Therefore, the Court finds that the arguments raised in the instant motion do not warrant
further analytical discussion.
Fatal to the pending motion, nothing new has been supplemented to the record by
the Motion for Reconsideration.
AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2011, it is hereby ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
MODIFICATION filed by Plaintiff is hereby DENIED.
On September 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the August 9, 2011
Memorandum Opinion and Order. Accordingly, because the Motion for Reconsideration has

2

now been decided, and there are no other motions pending, it is hereby ORDERED that this
matter is STAYED and the Clerk of Court shall mark this action administratively closed pending
disposition of the appeal.
BY THE COURT:
s/Terrence F. McVerry
United States District Court Judge

cc:

Carole L. Taylor
5044 Rosecrest Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15201
(via United States Mail and
Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested)
Robert J. Williams, Esquire
Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis
Email: [e-mail]
David A. Wolf, Esquire
Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin
Email: [e-mail]
Robert J. Garvin, Esquire
Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin
Email: [e-mail]

3