U:\DOCS\pak\Transoce an-Holt-Marino\Memo Law Rsp Reco n 10-2 0-03 .wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

JOSEPH MARINO : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff : NO. 02-4488 

:

v. :

:

SLS, INC. d/b/a HOLT OVERSIGHT AND :

LOGISTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, ET AL. :

:

 Defendants :

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS, SLS, INC. d/b/a HOLT

OVERSIGHT AND LOGISTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, TRANS OCEAN MARITIME

SERVICES, INC., AND JOSEPH LEVY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

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 (3rd Cir. 1985),

cert. den., 476 U.S. 1171, 90 L.Ed.2d. 982, 106 S. Ct.2895 (1986). A District Court should only grant

a Motion for Reconsideration if the moving party establishes that:

(1) there is new evidence not previously available;

(2) an intervening change in controlling law occurred; or,

(3) there is a need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.

Reich v. Compton, 834 F.Supp. 753 (E.D. Pa. 1993); Dodge v. Susquehanna University, 796

F.Supp. 829, 830 (M.D. Pa. 1992); Walker v. Spiller, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8428, No. Civ. A. 97-

6720, 1998 W.L. 306540 @*2 (E.D. Pa. 1998). District Courts should grant such motions only

sparingly because of their strong interest in finality of judgment. Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified

Funds., 884 F.Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995).

Under this standard, Plaintiff is has not provided this Court with any basis for altering its

decision on Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff has not requested reconsideration

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 69-2 Filed 10/20/2003 Page 1 of 2
1

 Although the Court did hold that, as a matter of law, neither SLS, Inc. d/b/a Holt

Oversight and Logistical Technologies nor Joseph Levy owed a duty of care to Plaintiff (Order, VI,

pp. 13-15; VII, p. 16, footnote 9), and that as such, even if Plaintiff had demonstrated good cause

for its failure to serve Mr. Levy, Summary Judgment in favor of Mr. Levy would have been granted

on the grounds set forth in VI of the Memorandum. (Order, VII, p. 16, footnote 9). 

U:\DOCS\pak\Transoce an-Holt-Marino\Memo Law Rsp Reco n 10-2 0-03 .wpd 2

of the Order with regard to SLS, Inc. d/b/a Holt Oversight and Logistical Technologies. With regard

to Defendant Joseph Levy, Plaintiff claims that Plaintiff was “denied due process of law in

adjudicating summary judgment of Defendant Joseph Levy insofar as there was no motion for

summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendant Joseph Levy.” (Plaintiff’s Motion, para. 5). This is

not accurate. The Court did not grant Summary Judgment in favor of Joseph Levy, but dismissed the

claims against Mr. Levy pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) for failure to effect service.1

 

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants, SLS, Inc. d/b/a Holt Oversight and Logistical

Technologies, Trans Ocean Maritime Services, Inc., and Joseph Levy, pray this Honorable Court

dismiss Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the

extent that this Court deems proper and just. 

Respectfully submitted:

MATTIONI, LTD.

BY: 

Faust Mattioni, Esquire

Paul A. Kettunen, Esquire

Mattioni, Ltd.

399 Market Street, 2nd Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19106

(215) 629-1600

Dated __________________

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 69-2 Filed 10/20/2003 Page 2 of 2