MCARDLE
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION re: "Corrections for the Record" (ECF No. 10). Signed by Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 07/26/2017. (ten)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF
PAUL J. McARDLE,
ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
NUMBER 34446, A MEMBER
OF THE BAR OF THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Misc. No. 16-1067
OPINION
On May 31, 2017, this court entered an order suspending Paul J. McArdle (“McArdle”)
from the practice of law in the United States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania for
one year and one day, retroactive to December 22, 2016. (ECF No. 6.) That order was reciprocal
to an order of suspension entered by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on November 22, 2016.
McArdle filed a motion for reconsideration in which he argued that this court should not have
entered a reciprocal order of suspension because the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board
proceedings and resultant Pennsylvania Supreme Court order of suspension violated his
Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law. (ECF No. 7.) Specifically, McArdle claimed
that he was denied the opportunity to present evidence in his defense during the disciplinary
proceedings, and that the disciplinary charges against him were unsupported by testimonial
evidence, among other defects in the proceedings. (ECF No. 7 ¶¶3, 7-8.) This court considered
each of McArdle’s arguments, but denied his motion for reconsideration. (ECF Nos. 8-9.)
Shortly after the court denied that motion, McArdle filed a document entitled
“Corrections for the Record,” which he submitted in order “to correct and clarify the record.”
(ECF No. 10.) Although the intent and purpose of the submission is not readily apparent,
McArdle does reiterate his position that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s order suspending him
from the practice of law for one year and one day “should not have been followed by this District
Court” because the state disciplinary proceedings were a “sham” that suffered from “gross
defects of the procedure” and “a complete failure of evidence against him.” (Id. ¶¶ 7-8, 10.) The
court, out of an abundance of caution, treats McArdle’s most recent filings as a second motion
for reconsideration.
A motion to reconsider should granted only if the movant demonstrates: 1) an intervening
change in controlling law; 2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or 3) the
need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e); Allah v.
Ricci, 532 F.App’x 48, 51 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d
Cir. 2010)); Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing N. River
Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). In order to be
successful on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate a “definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed,” or that the court overlooked arguments that were
previously made. United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D. Pa. 2003). A motion for
reconsideration is not to be used to relitigate, or “rehash,” issues the court already decided, or to
ask a district court to rethink a decision it, rightly or wrongly, already made. Bell v. City of
Phila., 275 F. App'x 157, 160 (3d Cir. 2008); Spence v. City of Phila., 147 F.App’x 289, 291-92
(3d Cir. 2005); Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995);
Trenton v. Scott Paper Co., 832 F.2d 806, 810 (3d Cir. 1987); Williams v. City of Pittsburgh, 32
F.Supp.2d 236, 238 (W.D. Pa. 1998); Reich v. Compton, 834 F.Supp. 753, 755 (E.D. Pa. 1993),
aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 57 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 1995); Keyes v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 766
F.Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991).
2
McArdle’s most recent submission provides no basis for this court to reexamine the
previously-issued suspension order. McArdle relies upon the same facts and makes the same
legal arguments as he made in his prior submissions before this court. (ECF Nos. 5, 7.) The law
has not changed. McArdle identifies no new evidence. And apart from his disagreement with
the court’s order, McArdle demonstrates no mistake, error, or injustice in the court’s prior ruling.
McArdle is, therefore, not entitled to relief to the extent his “Corrections for the Record” is
treated as a second motion for reconsideration. An appropriate order will be entered
contemporaneously with this opinion.
Dated: July 26, 2017
FOR THE COURT:
/s/ Joy Flowers Conti
Joy Flowers Conti
Chief United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?