court concluded: Id. Other courts that have considered this issue are in accord. See, e.g., Redner’s Markets, Inc. v. Joppatowne G.P. Ltd. P’ship, No. RDB-11-1864, 2013 WL 5274356, at *7 (D.Md. Sept. 17, 2013); Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal.1986), rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.1987) (“Courts have distilled various grounds for reconsideration of prior rulings into three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence or an expanded factual record; and (3) need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”); Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F.Supp. 1239, 1241 (D.Del.1990); Shields v. Shetler, 120 F.R.D. 123, 125-26 (D.Colo.1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 969
holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration holding that the standard of review for the denial of a motion for reconsideration is governed by the law of the regional circuit recognizing the three customary reasons for granting a motion for reconsideration providing they are of a strongly convincing nature and observing that a motion for reconsideration is not a license for a losing partys attorney to get a second bite at the apple holding under third circuit law that the denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding issue raised for first time in motion for reconsideration constituted waiver