Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-108
01-05-2012
MADISYN S. MILLER, a minor, by and through her parents and natural guardians, ANGELA L. MILLER and DA VID MILLER, and ANGELA L. MILLER and DAVID MILLER, in their own right, Plaintiffs, v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Defendant.
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT
I. SYNOPSIS
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 77) filed by Defendant Evenflo Company, Inc. ("Evenflo"), which Plaintiffs David, Angela, and Madisyn Miller (collectively, "Plaintiffs") oppose. For the reasons that follow, the Court will DENY Evenflo's motion.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1) and 1441(a). Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). III. BACKGROUND
The Court detailed the factual and procedural background of this case in its Memorandum and Order dated December 15, 2011 (Doc. No. 73). Because familiarity with that Memorandum and Order is presumed, this section is limited to the facts relevant to the disposition of the instant motion.
This case arises from a skin reaction (contact dermatitis) Madisyn Miller allegedly suffered as a result of using an Evenflo Big Kid Booster Car Seat (the "Car Seat"). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 55 and 59), which the Court denied by Memorandum and Order (Doc. No. 73) after concluding that each party failed to demonstrate the absence of genuine disputes of material fact. Evenflo filed the instant motion for reconsideration contending that the Court committed clear error and once again requesting that summary judgment be entered in its favor. The motion has been fully briefed, (see Doc. Nos. 78 and 120), and is now ripe for disposition.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Evenflo filed the motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). "The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is 'to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.'" Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1998)). As the Third Circuit has explained, a judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration demonstrates at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Lazaridis, 591 F.3d at 669 (citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)); Quinteros, 176 F.3d at 677. Furthermore, "[m]ere 'dissatisfaction with [a court's] ruling is not a proper basis for reconsideration." Holbrook v. Woodham, Civ. A. No. 3:05-304, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50966, *4 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (quoting Velazquez v. UPMC Bedford Mem'l Hosp., 338 F. Supp. 2d 609, 611 (W.D. Pa. 2004)); see also Lazaridis, 591 F.3d at 669 (upholding a district court's denial of a motion for reconsideration because advancing "the same arguments that were in [the movant's] complaint and motions" was "not a proper basis for reconsideration").
V. DISCUSSION
Evenflo contends that the Court committed clear error by: (1) relying on inadmissible hearsay evidence as the sole basis for concluding that a factual dispute exists; and (2) concluding that a factual dispute exists regarding whether Madisyn Miller suffered an idiosyncratic reaction. The Court will address each of these arguments in turn.
A. Inadmissible Evidence
Evenflo argues that the Court impermissibly relied on hearsay evidence to conclude that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding whether Madisyn Miller's reaction was idiosyncratic. Specifically, Evenflo contends that the "sole basis" for the Court's decision was inadmissible hearsay—the unsworn report of Plaintiffs' medical expert, in which he opined that Madisyn Miller's reaction was not idiosyncratic. (See Doc. No. 78 at 4). Despite Evenflo's contention, the Court did not rely on statements contained in the unsworn report; rather, the Court relied on the portions of the expert's deposition transcript which the parties cited in their Concise Statements of Material Fact (Doc. Nos. 57 and 63). In determining whether a factual dispute exists, district courts may properly rely on deposition testimony contained in the record. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56 (c)(1)(A); Aaron v. Wyeth, Civ. A. No. 2:07cv927, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14581, *25 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2010). Therefore, Evenflo's first argument in support of its motion for reconsideration fails.
B. Idiosyncratic Reaction
In its motion, Evenflo also rehashes an argument that it raised in its motion for summary judgment: that no genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether Madisyn Miller's reaction was idiosyncratic because Plaintiffs' expert misunderstood the term idiosyncratic. (See Doc. No. 78 at 5). The Court previously denied this argument, (see Doc. No. 73 at 4, n. 2), and reminded Evenflo's counsel at the pretrial conference held on December 16, 2011 that a motion for reconsideration was not a proper vehicle through which to reiterate summary judgment arguments, (see Doc. No. 74). But the Court's directive was not heeded.
Advancing the same argument a second time is not a proper basis for reconsideration. See Lazaridis, 591 F.3d at 669. Thus, Evenflo's second argument in support of its motion for reconsideration fails as well.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court concludes that its previous decision (Doc. No. 73) was not based on a clear error of law or fact. Accordingly, the Court will DENY Evenflo's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 77). An appropriate order follows.
MADISYN S. MILLER, a minor, by and through her parents and natural guardians,
ANGELA L. MILLER and DAVID MILLER, and ANGELA L. MILLER and DAVID MILLER, in their own right, Plaintiffs,
v.
EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-108
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of January 2012, in accordance with the Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Evenflo Company, Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 77) is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________
KIM R. GIBSON,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE