Olick v. Kearney et al

The name “KOFC” refers to Defendant Knights of Columbus.1
1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE:
THOMAS W. OLICK, 	: 	Chapter 13
Debtor(s) 	:
:
:
: 	Bky. No. 07-10880ELF
THOMAS W. OLICK, 	:
Plaintiff 	:
:
v. 	:
:
JAMES KEARNEY, 	: 	Adv. No. 07-052ELF
THOMAS JENKINS, 	:
THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS and 	:
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. 	: 	Adv. No. 07-060ELF
Defendants 	:
O R D E R
AND NOW WHEREAS, on October 19, 2007, Plaintiff Thomas W. Olick (“the
Plaintiff”) having filed a motion titled “Motion to Accept His Supplemental Exhibit To His
Answer and Brief In Opposition To Defendants Kearney's, Jenkins' and KOFC’s Motion For
Summary Judgment” (“the Motion”) , see Docket Entry No. 159;1
AND, by Order dated November 5, 2007, the court having denied the Motion on the
grounds, inter alia, that the proposed submission consisted of legal argument and unverified
factual material from a different lawsuit filed in response to a motion filed under a different rule
Case 07-00060-elf Doc 207 Filed 11/27/07 Entered 11/28/07 09:32:22 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

The material was filed in the other lawsuit in response to a motion filed under2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In this adversary proceeding, the Plaintiff is responding to a motion
filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
In the Reconsideration Motion, the Plaintiff stated that he intended to file a3
separate Memorandum of Law in support of thereof “under separate cover.” No such
Memorandum has been filed.
2
of civil procedure and that the filing of the proposed submission would add an unreasonable2
level of redundancy and complexity to the resolution of the Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment in this adversary proceeding; see Docket Entry No. 180;
AND, on November 16, 2007, the Plaintiff having filed a motion entitled “Motion to
Reconsider the Court’s 11/5/07 Order Denying the Plaintiff’s Motion to Accept His
Supplemental Exhibit” (“the Reconsideration Motion”), see Docket Entry No. 198;
AND, the purpose of a motion for reconsideration being to correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d
Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171, 106 S.Ct. 2895 (1986);
AND, it being an accepted legal principle that “courts should grant such motions
sparingly because of their strong interest in finality of judgment.” In re Kuhar, 2007 WL
2245912, *2 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Aug. 1, 2007) (citations omitted);
AND, the Reconsideration Motion failing to present: (a) arguments not previously
considered by the court; (b) any persuasive argument that the court previously committed a
manifest error of law or (c) any newly discovered evidence;3
Case 07-00060-elf Doc 207 Filed 11/27/07 Entered 11/28/07 09:32:22 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3
It is hereby ORDERED that the Reconsideration Motion is DENIED.
Date: 	November 27, 2007
ERIC L. FRANK
U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
cc: 	Thomas W. Olick
4014 Crestview Avenue
Easton, PA 18045
Case 07-00060-elf Doc 207 Filed 11/27/07 Entered 11/28/07 09:32:22 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3