ARDURRA GROUP, INC. v. GERRITY

E.D. Pennsylvania

ARDURRA GROUP, INC. v. GERRITY

DecidedNovember 5, 2019

Docket2:19-cv-03238

StatusUnknown

This text of ARDURRA GROUP, INC. v. GERRITY (ARDURRA GROUP, INC. v. GERRITY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ARDURRA GROUP, INC. v. GERRITY, (E.D. Pa. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

FORI NT HTEH EE AUSNTIETREND DSTISATTREISC DT IOSTFR PIECNTN CSOYULVRAT NIA

: ARDURRA GROUP, INC., : CIVIL ACTION : Plaintiff, : : v. : No.: 19-cv-3238 : DANIEL GERRITY, : : Defendant. : :

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT F. KELLY, Sr. J. NOVEMBER 5, 2019

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of our Order of September 9, 2019 in which we granted Ardurra’s Motion for Reconsideration and ordered that, “The Preliminary Injunction Order at Docket No. 11 prohibits Defendant from being employed by or performing work for or on behalf of Bernhard and its portfolio and related companies and funds.” (Docket No. 23). The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of the law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Max’s Seafood Café by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F. 3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).1 The issues raised in the present motion have all been considered before either in the discussion following the preliminary hearing on August 8, 2019, see arguments of counsel pp 67- 79 at Docket No. 18; the telephonic conference transcript (Docket No. 25), Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 17), Defendant’s response (Docket No. 20) or Plaintiff’s reply, (Docket No. 22). For this reason, we enter the following order.

1 Plaintiff in addition makes the argument that at least some of Defendant’s arguments are time-barred because they

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FORI NT HTEH EE AUSNTIETREND DSTISATTREISC DT IOSTFR PIECNTN CSOYULVRAT NIA

: ARDURRA GROUP, INC., : CIVIL ACTION : Plaintiff, : : v. : No.: 19-cv-3238 : DANIEL GERRITY, : : Defendant. : :

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT F. KELLY, Sr. J. NOVEMBER 5, 2019

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of our Order of September 9, 2019 in which we granted Ardurra’s Motion for Reconsideration and ordered that, “The Preliminary Injunction Order at Docket No. 11 prohibits Defendant from being employed by or performing work for or on behalf of Bernhard and its portfolio and related companies and funds.” (Docket No. 23). The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of the law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Max’s Seafood Café by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F. 3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).1 The issues raised in the present motion have all been considered before either in the discussion following the preliminary hearing on August 8, 2019, see arguments of counsel pp 67- 79 at Docket No. 18; the telephonic conference transcript (Docket No. 25), Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 17), Defendant’s response (Docket No. 20) or Plaintiff’s reply, (Docket No. 22). For this reason, we enter the following order.

1 Plaintiff in addition makes the argument that at least some of Defendant’s arguments are time-barred because they

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

ARDURRA GROUP, INC. v. GERRITY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ardurra-group-inc-v-gerrity-paed-2019.