KUROWSKI v. CITY OF WASHINGTON et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 14 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 1/13/2015. (rjw)

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

CHARLES E. KUROWSKI,
Plaintiff,
v
CITY OF WASHINGTON, RON MCINTYRE,
Code Officer, and RON MCINTYRE,
Individually,
Defendants.

)
)
)
) 2:14-cv-1495
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Now pending before the Court is the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No.
14) filed on December 23, 2014, by Plaintiff, Charles Kurowski.1 In the motion, Plaintiff asks
this Court reconsider its ruling, which denied his motion for a preliminary injunction on the basis
of the Younger abstention doctrine and stayed the damages portion of this case pending the
outcome of the parallel state-court proceedings making their way through the Washington
County Court of Common Peas. “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration . . . is to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Max’s Seafood Café v.
1.
Defendants were given until January 6, 2015, to file a response. To date, however, no
response has been filed. On a related note, Plaintiff claims in his motion that after filing his
supplement, he “waited for the court to set a briefing schedule which was never received.” Pl.’s
Mot. ¶ 5, ECF No. 14. By that point, however, the Court had already set a briefing schedule on
Plaintiff’s motion, having ordered Defendants to respond by December 9. See CM/ECF Text
Order of Nov. 25, 2014. Per this Court’s practices and procedures, Plaintiff had five days within
which to file a reply brief after the filing of Defendant’s response, if he desired to do so. See
Practices
and
Procedures,
Rule
II(B)
available
at
http://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/Documents/Public/Reference/mcverry.pdf. He chose note to. It
should also be noted that Plaintiff should have – but did not – file a brief in support of his
motion. See id. (“Briefs in support and opposition to substantive and dispositive motions which
involve the merits of the case are required.”). The Court, thus, ruled on the matter in light of the
record as it existed at the time. Plaintiff had the opportunity to file additional briefing, but out of
ignorance of this Court’s rules, he missed out on his chance. The Court will not reopen the
matter now to give him another opportunity.
1

Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). A
prior decision may be altered or amended only if the party seeking reconsideration demonstrates
one of the following: (1) “an intervening change in the controlling law;” (2) “the availability of
new evidence that was not available when the” motion under consideration was decided; or (3)
“the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. Plaintiff has not
even attempted to address any of these factors. Nor has he addressed the specific basis of the
Court’s decision to deny his motion for preliminary injunction: the Younger abstention doctrine.
He merely rehashes the arguments made in his prior filings and attempts to distinguish a few
cases cited in Defendant’s response, which the Court has already explained have no application
in this case and which played absolutely no part in the Court’s decision.2 See ECF No. 12, at 4-5
n.2 (noting that Defendants cited “two Title VII cases which have absolutely no application to
this case”). Accordingly, since Plaintiff has not established any basis upon which the Court
should reconsider its prior ruling, his motion is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 13th day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Terrence F. McVerry_________
Senior United States District Judge

2.
Relying on a pair of Pennsylvania cases, Plaintiff also seems to suggest that the Court
was required to hold a hearing before issuing a decision on his motion. Contrary to this
contention, however, there is no “absolute right to a hearing on a preliminary injunction motion.”
Hynoski v. Columbia Cnty. Redevelopment Auth., 485 F. App’x 559, 563 (3d Cir. 2012). As the
Court of Appeals has explained, “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) provides that courts have
the discretion to issue a preliminary injunction only after affording the adverse party notice. The
rule mentions hearings but does not explicitly require one.” Id. (citing Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd.
of Educ., 910 F.2d 1172, 1175–76 (3d Cir. 1990); Jackson v. Fair, 846 F.2d 811, 819 (1st Cir.
1988)). Therefore, a district court’s decision “not to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to denying
the motion for a preliminary injunction [is reviewed] for abuse of discretion.” Id. (citing Elliott v.
Kiesewetter, 98 F.3d 47, 53 (3d Cir. 1996)). Because it was clear to the Court from the parties’
filings that abstention was appropriate, no hearing was necessary.
2

cc:

James R. Jeffries, Esq.
Email: [e-mail]
John F. Cambest, Esq.
Email: [e-mail]

3