Civ. No. 09-340-LPS, Civ. No. 10-398-LPS.
July 18, 2011
At Wilmington, this 18th day of July, 2011,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff Rader's Motion to Reconsider (C.A. No. 09-340 D.I. 119; C.A. No. 10-398 D.I. 33) is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff has not identified any meritorious basis for the Court to reconsider the determinations it previously made and announced in its Memorandum Opinion and Orders of March 24, 2011. (C.A. No. 09-340 D.I. 118; C.A. No. 10-398 D.I. 31, 32)
See Max's Seafood Cafe by LouAnn, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (holding motion for reconsideration may be granted only if movant can show at least one of the following: (i) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) availability of new evidence not available when court made its decision; or (iii) need to correct clear error of law or fact to prevent manifest injustice); Smith v. Meyers, 2009 WL 51195928, at *1 (D. Del. Dec. 30, 2009) ("A motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a request that a court rethink a decision already made.").