GILMORE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Filing 279

MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: #277 Ford's Motion for Reconsideration, denying motion. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 3/7/2013. (lcb) Modified on 3/8/2013 to add additional docket text. (ksa2)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Michael Gilmore, as Administrator
of the Estate of Jenna Lyn Gilmore

)
)
)
Plaintiff
)
v.
)
)
Ford Motor Company
)
)
Defendant
)
v.
)
)
Charles Cooper and Michael Pleskovich and )
Barbara J. Pleskovich as Administrators
)
of the Estate of Michael Craig Pleskovich, )
)
)
Third-Party Defendants
)

Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-00547
LEAD CASE

CONSOLIDATED WITH
Michael L. Pleskovich and
Barbara J. Pleskovich, as
Co-Administrators of the Estate
of Michael Craig Pleskovich
Plaintiffs
v.
Ford Motor Company
Defendant
v.
Charles Cooper,
Third-Party Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-00548
MEMBER CASE

MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: FORD’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. NO. 277)
I. Introduction
Currently before the Court is Defendant Ford Motor Company’s (“Ford’s”) Motion for
Reconsideration. Doc. No. 277. On February 27, 2013, this Court entered a Memorandum
Order resolving 19 Motions in Limine and Ford’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer.
Doc. No. 274. In that Order, the Court ruled that it would follow its previous Opinions on the
matter and utilize the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Id. Ford seeks reconsideration of that
portion of the Order. Because Ford fails to meet the high standard for Reconsideration, Ford’s
Motion to Reconsider (Doc. No. 277) will be DENIED.
II. Standard of Review
The purpose of a Motion for Reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact
or to present newly discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.
1985). Generally, a Motion for Reconsideration will only be granted on one of the following
three grounds: (1) if there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) if new evidence,
which was not previously available, has become available; or (3) if it is necessary to correct a
clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Café by Lou Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
A Court may not grant a Motion for Reconsideration when the motion simply restyles or
rehashes issues previously presented. Pahler v. City of Wilkes Barre, 207 F.Supp.2d 341, 355
(M.D. Pa. 2001). 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 citation and quotes
2

omitted). Because federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments, Motions for
Reconsideration should be granted sparingly. Rossi v. Schlarbaum, 600 F.Supp.2d 650, 670
(E.D. Pa. 2009).
III. Discussion
Ford seeks reconsideration of this Court’s Order because the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania revisited its choice to apply the Restatement (Second) in
Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 07cv00886, Doc. No. 324 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 17, 2012). The
District Court did so after the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit refused to
grant an application for leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Sikkelee v. Precision
Airmotive Corp., 2012 WL 5077571 (3d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012) (en banc). In so doing, the United
States Court of Appeals stated that “[t]he Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not issued a definitive
opinion on whether the Restatement (Third) of Torts or the Restatements (Second) of Torts and
applies to strict liability and product defect cases.” Id. at *1.
The Order by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Sikkelee was
non-precedential, and this Court is not bound by non-precedential decisions. In re Grand Jury
Investigation, 445 F.3d 266, 276 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[non-precedential dispositions] are not
precedents for the [D]istrict [C]ourts of this circuit”); United States v. Barney, 792 F.Supp.2d
725, 729 (D. N.J. 2011). Thus, this Court is free to stand by its position that Beard v. Johnson &
Johnson, Inc., 41 A.3d 823, 836 (Pa. 2012) is contrary to Covell v. Bell Sports, Inc., 651 F.3d
357, 360 (3d Cir. 2011). Konold v. Superior Int'l Indus. Inc., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 WL
5381700, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2012) (Schwab, J.).
Furthermore, the Court finds that Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 55 A.3d 1088 (Pa. 2012),
which was issued after the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s Order in

3

Sikkelee and this Court’s Opinion in Konold, is contrary to Covell. The Pennsylvania Supreme
Court discussed, in great detail, the contours of Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of
Torts. Id. at 1092-1108. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not discuss Sections 1 and/or 2 of
the Restatement (Third) of Torts. Therefore, there has been no change in controlling law since
this Court’s Order (Doc. No. 274), there is no new evidence available to the Court, nor was the
Court’s Order in clear error of the law.
IV. Order
AND NOW, this 7th day of March, 2013, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ford’s Motion
for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 277) is DENIED.
s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge
cc:

All counsel of record

4