EFTA Document EFTA01363333

Page 16 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93633, * IHN25) A party may file a motion asking the court to reconsider its order or decision. A motion to reconsider shall be based on: 1. Intervening change in controlling law; 2. Availability of new evidence, or; 3. The need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice LRCi 7.3 (2008). [" 26] [HN26] 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). Such motions are not substitutes for appeals, and are not to be used as "a vehicle for registering disagreement with the courts initial decision, for rearguing matters already addressed by the court, or for raising arguments that could have been raised before but were not." Bostic v. AT&T of the V.I., 312 F.Supp. 2d 731, 733, 45 V.I. 553 (D.V.I. 2004). In its motion for reconsideration, North Shore made two arguments. First, it argued that the bankruptcy court should reconsider because it improperly failed to consider Dawn Prosser's affidavit in deciding Carroll's motion for summary judgment. That argument is unsupported by the record. This Court has herein cited to numerous references in the bankruptcy court's memorandum opinion where it refers to and analyzes the substance of Dawn Prosser's affidavit. As such, the bankruptcy court did not err in refusing to reconsider on that basis. Second, North Shore argued that the court should grant its motion because the underlying complaint contains "factually r 27] untrue" allegations. (North Shore Mot. Recons. 6-7, Adv. Pro. No. 08-03048, ECF No. 36). That argument ignores the numerous opportunities which North Shore had to oppose Carroll's factual assertions. Carroll served North Shore with various requests for discovery, including requests for admissions. North Shore failed to adequately respond to such requests. Thereafter, Carroll filed two motions for summary judgment. North Shore had the opportunity to file oppositions to each of those motions. Although North Shore was tardy in filing such oppositions, the bankruptcy court nonetheless considered them in its memorandum opinion. Finally, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on Carroll's second motion for summary judgment. North Shore had the opportunity to challenge any of Carroll's factual assertions and to submit any evidence in support of its challenges at that hearing. North Shore failed to submit sufficient evidence supporting its assertions at that time. [HN27] "A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." See Dunkley v. Mellon Investor Servs., 378 Fed. Appx. 169, 172 (3rd Cir. 2010)(internal ['28] citation omitted). Yet, that is precisely what North Shore has done. Indeed, the information that North Shore presents was available to it at the time when it filed its opposition to Carroll's motion for summary judgment. In an effort to relitigate this matter, North Shore now seeks to rehash procedurally admitted factual issues. That effort is not For internal use only CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) DB-SDNY-0053294 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00199478 EFTA01363333