BAUM v. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Filing 87

ORDER denying deft's motion 81 for reconsideration of 1/11/18 memo & order 69 70 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Christopher C. Conner on 7/26/18. (kmMD)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BARBARA A. BAUM,

:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND :
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, :
t/d/b/a METLIFE AUTO & HOME,
:
:
Defendant
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-623
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of July, 2018, upon consideration of the motion
(Doc. 81) for reconsideration filed by defendant Metropolitan Property and Casualty
Insurance Company (“Metropolitan”), wherein Metropolitan seeks reconsideration
of the court’s memorandum and order (Docs. 69, 70) of January 11, 2018, denying
Metropolitan’s request to submit three nonparties to the jury as joint tortfeasors on
the verdict form, 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 Metropolitan bases its 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 Metropolitan’s motion (Doc. 81) for reconsideration of the memorandum and
order (Docs. 69, 70) dated January 11, 2018 is DENIED.

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