IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH MARINO, :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

KENT LINE INTERNATIONAL, LTD., :

et al., : No. 02-4488

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Schiller, J. October 29, 2003

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order of

October 3, 2003, which dismissed the claims against Defendant Joseph Levy for failure to effect

service of process and granted summary judgment to, inter alia, Defendant Inchcape Shipping. For

the reasons set out below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.

As the Third Circuit has stated:

The purpose of a motion for reconsideration . . . is to correct manifest errors of

law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Accordingly, a judgment

may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one

of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the

availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the

motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or

fact or to prevent manifest injustice. 

Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (internal

citations omitted).

In the instant case, Plaintiff proposes two grounds for reconsideration. First, Plaintiff

presents a series of emails that Plaintiff claims establishes the factual errors in the Court’s grant of

summary judgment. Plaintiff’s Motion, however, explicitly states that these documents were

produced by Defendants during the course of discovery and were “not previously presented to the

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 74 Filed 10/29/2003 Page 1 of 3
1

 The Court notes that even if it were to consider these documents, Plaintiff’s motion

would be denied on substantive grounds. The emails in question, even if construed in the light

most favorable to Plaintiff, do not tend to establish that the unloading of the KENT

VOYAGEUR was within the active control of anyone other than the stevedore. Plaintiff’s tacit

assertion that Inchcape’s monitoring of the progress of the unloading constitutes active control

for the purposes of the LHWCA is unsupported by case law, and Plaintiff’s Motion does not cite

a single authority in support of his proposition.

2

Court for consideration.” (Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. ¶ 2.) Accordingly, the documents are not “new

evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment,” Max's

Seafood, 176 F.3d at 677, and therefore they cannot be grounds for reconsideration.1

Second, Plaintiff claims that the Court denied his Due Process rights “in adjudicating

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

filed on behalf of Defendant Levy.” (Pl’s Mot. for Recons. ¶ 5.) The primary problem with this

argument, however, is that the Court did not grant summary judgment to Joseph Levy. Instead, the

Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Levy for failure to effect service of process. See Marino

v. Kent Line Int’l, Civ. No. 02-4488, Order ¶ 5 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 3, 2003) (“Plaintiff’s claims against

Joseph Levy are DISMISSED for lack of service of process.”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).

Plaintiff’s Motion does not even acknowledge the service-of-process issue, much less provide an

explanation as to why the Court’s ruling was in error. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s

Motion as to Joseph Levy.

For the reasons stated above, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. An

appropriate Order follows.

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 74 Filed 10/29/2003 Page 2 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH MARINO, :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

KENT LINE INTERNATIONAL, LTD., :

et al., : No. 02-4488

Defendants. :

 ORDER

AND NOW, this 29th day of October, 2003, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration and the responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration (Document No. 67) is DENIED. 

BY THE COURT:

 

Berle M. Schiller, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 74 Filed 10/29/2003 Page 3 of 3