IOWA SQUARE REALTY LLC v. JSMN SHENANGO VALLEY MALL, LLC

Filing 50

ORDER denying 46 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 3/7/18. (kld)

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

IOWA SQUARE REALTY LLC, a New
York limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
JSMN SHENANGO VALLEY MALL,
LLC, a New Jersey limited liability
company,
Defendant.

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

Civil Action No. 17-497

United States Magistrate Judge
Cynthia Reed Eddy

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant JSMN Shenango Valley Mall, LLC
(“Mortgagor”)’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 46) of this Court’s Order from February 9,
2018 (ECF No. 45) granting Plaintiff Iowa Square Realty LLC (Lender)’s motion for Expedited
Appointment of Receiver pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 66. (ECF No. 31). Lender has filed a
response. (ECF No. 48). For the reasons that follow, the motion for reconsideration will be
denied.
The parties agree that motions for reconsideration are governed by the following
standard: a court will not grant a motion for reconsideration unless there has been (1) an
intervening change in controlling law, (2) the emergence of new evidence not previously
available, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Max’s
Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 167 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). Plaintiff
makes no arguments with respect to the first two scenarios, and instead focuses on the third
scenario. In this regard, mere disagreement with the Court’s prior ruling is an insufficient basis
to satisfy that there was a clear error of law or that the motion is necessary to prevent manifest
1

injustice. Forta Corp. v. Surface-Tech, LLC, 2015 WL 12777653, *2 (W.D. Pa. 2015). Motions
for reconsideration should only be granted “sparingly” and are to be “strictly reviewed” by
district courts. Velazquez v. UPMC Bedford Memorial Hosp., 338 F.Supp.2d 609, 611 (W.D. Pa.
2004).
Mortgagor argues that it was not provided an opportunity to present its arguments related
to the proposed order granting the receivership, and that it merely argued against the
appointment of a receiver, and thus, we did not have the opportunity to consider its arguments
prior to entering the order. We note, however, that Mortgagor was given an opportunity to file a
response to the motion (ECF No. 33), and it did file a memorandum of law in opposition. (ECF
No. 34). We also provided Mortgagor an opportunity to file additional affidavits as to the
appointment of a receiver (ECF No. 35) and presumably, the affidavit which was filed (ECF No.
36) could have addressed the fairness of the terms or consequences of the Lender’s proposed
order. Moreover, because the parties had indicated that they were attempting to resolve the
receivership issue, we entered an order requiring the parties to jointly notify the court in writing
as to the status of any stipulation or other proposed agreement concerning the receivership
motion. (ECF No. 38). The Court was told by letter that the parties jointly request that the
scheduled hearing on the receiver motion be cancelled. When the Mortgagor submitted its
proposed order for the appointment of a receiver, it did not include any arguments or notification
as to the fairness of the terms of the Lender’s proposed Order. (ECF No. 43).
Under these circumstances, after careful consideration of all arguments brought by the
Mortgagor, the motion for reconsideration will be denied. The scope of such a motion is
extremely limited and do not include a provision for a second “bite at the apple.” Cole’s Wexford
Hotel, Inc. v. UPMC & Highmark Inc., 2017 WL 432947, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2017).

2

AND NOW this 7th day of March, 2018, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s
Motion for Reconsideration of Appointment of a Receiver (ECF No. 46) be and the same is
hereby DENIED.
By the Court:
s/Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge
cc: all counsel of record

3