A. The rationale for a motion for reconsideration “ ‘is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’ ” Max’s Seafood Café, 176 F.3d at 677 (quoting Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985)). There fore, a judgment may be altered or amended if Bootay “shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Id. In seeking reconsideration, Bootay relied upon a memorandum opinion issued by the District Court in Bixby v. KBR, Inc., No. CV 09-632, 2010 WL 3418340 (D.Or. Aug. 30, 2010) (<HOLDING>), amended and superseded by, 748 F.Supp.2d 1224
holding the federal tort claims act did not permit exercise of pendant jurisdiction over additional parties as to which no basis for federal jurisdiction existed holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court holding that the district court was not divested of subject matter jurisdiction upon the dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims holding 1 political question doctrine did not deprive court of subject matter jurisdiction 2 kbr was not entitled to government contractor defense and 3 combatant activities exception to federal tort claims act did not shield kbr holding that this language applies to tort claims brought under the federal tort claims act  against a contractor who has a selfdetermination contract