UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA □□ MARKHAM PAGAN and — JOSEPHINE PAGAN, - oo Plaintiffs, ‘|CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-ev-01621 |(GAPORITO,MJ.) RICHARD D. DENT etal, Defendants. _ □

MEMORANDUM On-January. 30, 2024, we denied the defendants’ motion for aera □ summary judgment in this case. Doc. 55 (order); see also Pagan □ Dent, No. 21-ev-01621, “2024 “WL 345485 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2024).

(memorandum pinion) Doe. 54. The defendants sought partial summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages. We ~ denied the motion, finding that summaty □□□ was precliided bya genuine dispute of material fact. The defendants have timely filed a motion for reconsideration of our order denying partial summary judgment — a Rule 59(e) of the: □ Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, together with a brief in support. Doc. 58. But Rule 59(e) does not apply in this instance because the order at .

issue is not a final judgment or order. See Bausch & Lomb Ine. v. Moria

(E.D. Pa. 2002). oe Because the defendants’ motion seeks reconsideration of □□ □ interlocutory order denying partial summary judgment, it is necessarily brought pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Qazizadeh v. Pinnacle Health Sys.,

(MD. ‘Pa. 2016) (‘[Mlotions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders whether denials of summary judgment, grants of partial summary

judgment, or any other non-final orders—are motions under FederalRule. of Civil Procedure 54(b).”). Under Rule 54(b), “[a]n order that does not.

dispose of every claim in an action ‘may be revised at any time before the ‘entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights

and liabilities.” Clark Distrib. Sys., Inc. v. ALG Direct, Inc., 12°F. Supp.

702, 717 (M.D. Pa. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)); see also Qazizadeh,

. Reconsideration ‘of interlocutory □

_. orders “may be had even if a movant cannot show an intervenirig change

in controlling law, the availability of new evidence that not available __ when the court issues the underlying order, or ‘the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Qazizadeh, 214F

| Supp. 3d at 295 (quoting Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. ‘Lou-Ann, Ine. v.

Quinteros,

(3d Cir. 1999). “Instead, the court may

permit reconsideration whenever ‘consonant: with justice to do so.” .Id. □ (quoting St. Mary's Area Water Auth. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Supp. 2d 630, 632 (M.D. Pa. 2007)); see also Clark Distr. Sys. □□□ Supp. 3d at_717 (citing United States v. Jerry,

(3d: Cir. 1978). Nevertheless, _ [blefore entertaining a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order, the movant must still establish | □ good cause for why the court should revisit-its prior - decision. Moreover, whether: involving a final or . □□ interlocutory order, a motion for reconsideration is not □ _to be used as a means to reargue matters already □□ argued and disposed of or as an attempt to relitigate Av. --point of disagreement between the .Court : and the si. □□□ litigant. A reconsideration motion should not be used to. □□ try to get.a second bite at the apple or to raise new arguments or evidence that could have been proffered. prior to the issuance of the order in question. □ □ Qazizadeh, 214 F Supp. 3d at 295-96 (citations and ‘internal quotation. marks omitted). a : The gist of the defendants’ motion for reconsideration is that our □

_ denial of partial summary: judgment was clearly erroneous because our order and opinion failed to cite specific facts to. support our finding that reasonable jury could conclude that defendant Dent operated his

_ vehicle in a reckless manner and defendant P&S exhibited reckless □

disregard in its failure to train and supervise Dent. .

Although specific findings of fact by the court. are required in

connection with bench trial proceedings, there is no ‘such requirement

with respect to summary judgment rulings. Compare Fed. R, Civ.. P.

52(a)(1) (‘In an diction onthe facts without jury or with an advisory □ poate court mist find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately.”) with Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(3) (The court is not required to state findings or reaclusione when ruling ona motion under Rule 12

or 56... .”)3 see eo Lexion Med, LLC v. Northgate Techs, Inc., 641 Fad □ 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[Wlhere the record adequately supports the’ judgment, the district court does not have an obligation to recite every. detail of its veasoning.”); Randolph-Sheppard ‘Vendors of Am., Ine. Harris,

(D.C. Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (recognizing that detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary in

‘procedural context of a summary judgment ruling). The only finding 3 “necessary in : summary judgment ruling is whether any genuine dispute of material fact ‘exists. See Hindes vz United States,

, 152 Cir. 1964); accord Shook v. United States, 713 Fed 662, 665 (11th

Cir 1983); Gurley v. Wilson, 239 F2d 957, 958 (D.C. Cir 1956) (per

‘curiam)s Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Goldstein,

, □□□□ (EDN x 1942). Here, we expressly found that cemine Peau of material fact did exist, precluding summary judgment and passerine eee The moving defendants have failed to establish good cause for

this court should ee its prior decision. See Qazizadeh, 214 □ Supp. ‘83d at 296. We find no error with respect to the findings of factor the □ granularity of those findings—articulated in our prior decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(3). Moreover, the greater part of the deemed ss motion papers simply reargue matters already addressed by the parties and court in connection with underlying moons which is impermissible under Rule 54(b). See Qazizadeh, 214 BE. Supp. 3d at 295-96. □□ : We find no reasonable basis foi recondideration Accordingly, the □□

a defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 58) will be denied. An appropriate order follows. □□

"Dated: February 2024 ied gt F tee navel SEPH F.SAVORITO, JR. a United States Magistrate Judge