Dear Litigants: Before this Court is Plaintiff Monib Zirvi’s (“Zirvi”) Motion for Reconsideration (the “Motion”) of the Court’s Order, ECF No. 119 (the “April Order”), dismissing his Complaint with prejudice.
Following an in-person settlement conference with the Honorable Jessica S. Allen, Zirvi has withdrawn his Motion as to Defendants Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Rip Finst, Sean Boyle, Illumina, Inc., Latham & Watkins LLP, Roger Chin, and Douglas Lumish (the “Settling Defendants”).
His Motion, therefore, proceeds only as to Defendants Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (“Akin”), Matthew A. Pearson (“Pearson”), and Angela Verrecchio (“Verrecchio”) (collectively, the “Akin Defendants”).
For the reasons stated below, Zirvi’s Motion is DENIED.1 To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [issued its order]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
As Plaintiff fails to state any new issues of fact and has not otherwise met the standard for reconsideration, his Motion must be denied.