ARDURRA GROUP, INC. v. GERRITY

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- 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