1 There are 136 plaintiffs named in the caption of this case.

2 By Order of the undersigned dated June 3, 2005 and filed June 6,

2005, the supplemental brief was stricken from the record; however the Order

stated that the motion for reconsideration would be decided in due course.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN AMENDT, et al.,1 )

 ) Civil Action

Plaintiffs ) No. 04-CV-05299

 )

vs. )

 )

BOWE BELL + HOWELL COMPANY, )

 )

Defendant )

O R D E R

NOW, this 2nd day of March, 2006, upon consideration of

the Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Certify for Immediate Appeal this Court’s Order of March 14, 2005

Transferring this Case to the District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois or, Alternatively, Motion for

Reconsideration of the Transfer Order2, which brief was filed by

plaintiffs on May 24, 2005; upon consideration of Defendant’s

Response in Opposition to Supplemental Brief in Support of

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify for Immediate Appeal this Court’s

Order of March 14, 2005 or Alternatively, Motion for

Reconsideration of the Transfer Order, which response was filed

May 26, 2005; it appearing that, by Order of the undersigned

dated June 3, 2005, plaintiffs’ motion to certify immediate

appeal of the March 14, 2005 Order was denied,

Case 2:04-cv-05299-JKG Document 51 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 3
BY THE COURT:

/s/ James Knoll Gardner 

James Knoll Gardner

United States District Judge

 

3 We deny plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration as both untimely

and inappropriate grounds for reconsideration.

First, as plaintiffs note in their brief, under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 59(e), motions for reconsideration must be filed within 10

days of the Order on which they seek reconsideration. Further, Local Rule

7.1(g) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania requires that “[m]otions for reconsideration or reargument shall

be served and filed within ten (10) days of the entry of judgment, order, or

decree concerned.” 

In this case, the Order transferring venue was entered on 

March 14, 2005. The alternative motion seeking reconsideration was filed on

May 24, 2005. Therefore, more than 10 days had passed since the entry of the

Order transferring venue and the motion for reconsideration was filed. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the motion for reconsideration as untimely. 

Alternatively, if we were to construe plaintiffs’ motion for

reconsideration as timely, we would deny the motion.

Plaintiffs argue that the Honorable John W. Darrah’s denial of

class certification on May 10, 2005 is reason to reconsider our Order of 

March 14, 2005 transferring venue. More specifically, plaintiffs argue that

the Memorandum Opinion and Order denying class certification undermines our

decision to Order a transfer of venue. We disagree.

As our former colleague United States District Judge Louis C.

Bechtel has cogently stated:

Local Rule 7.1(g) of Civil Procedure for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania allows a party to make motion for

reconsideration. “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). “Because

(Footnote 3 continued):

-2-

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for

reconsideration of the March 14, 2005 transfer order is

dismissed.3

Case 2:04-cv-05299-JKG Document 51 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 3
 

(Continuation of Footnote 3):

federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of

judgments, motions for reconsideration should be granted

sparingly.” Continental Casualty Co. v. Diversified Indus.,

Inc., 884 F.Supp. 937, 943 (E.D.Pa. 1995). Courts will

reconsider an issue only “when there has been an intervening

change in the controlling law, when new evidence has become

available, or when there is a need to correct a clear error

or prevent manifest injustice.” NL Industries, Inc. v.

Comercial Union Ins. Co., 65 F.3d 324 n. 8 (3d Cir. 1995). 

Mere dissatisfaction with the Court’s ruling is not a proper

basis for reconsideration. Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of

Glendon, 836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D.Pa. 1993).

Burger King Corporation v. New England Hood and Duct Cleaning Company, 

No. Civ. A. 98-3610, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1022 at *4-5 (E.D.Pa. Feb. 4,

2000)(Bechtle, J.).

We conclude that Judge Darrah’s decision not to certify the class

is not “an intervening change in controlling law” because a decision from the

United States District Court for the North District of Illinois Eastern

Division, although it may be persuasive, is not controlling on the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

Nor is Judge Darrah’s decision “new evidence”. Moreover, even if

we were to consider Judge Darrah’s decision as new evidence, we find that the

decision does not affect our Order or the reasoning behind it. First, Judge

Darrah’s May 10, 2005 Memorandum Opinion and Order addressed class

certification only and not venue. Second, our Order entered on March 14, 2005

and the accompanying reasons placed on the record on March 14, 2005 sets forth

both our finding that Illinois is a more appropriate venue than the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania and our contemplation that Judge Darrah will exercise

judicial discretion in managing the progression of these cases in an

appropriate manner. 

Finally, Judge Darrah’s decision does not require us to “correct a

clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” In this case a decision not to

certify a class does not mean that we committed a clear error or that a

manifest injustice will result. As stated above, Judge Darrah’s decision not

to certify the class addressed class certification only. Moreover, Judge

Darrah’s decision did not affect the final disposition of plaintiff’s case,

which at the time of the decision was still pending. Accordingly, we would

deny plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration as inappropriate grounds to seek

reconsideration.

-3-

Case 2:04-cv-05299-JKG Document 51 Filed 03/03/06 Page 3 of 3