Bruce Baldinger v. Antonio Ferri, 674 F. App'x 204

In 2010 Bruce Baldinger sued several defendants, including Matteo Patisso, alleging dissemination of false information and interference with his law practice; Baldinger obtained default judgment after an evidentiary hearing, including damages and an injunction against Patisso.
Patisso repeatedly sought relief from the judgment through Rule 60(b) motions and motions for reconsideration; earlier denials were affirmed on appeal in 2013.
On July 21, 2014 Patisso filed another Rule 60(b) motion seeking dismissal, dissolution of the judgment for fraud on the court, and recusal of Judge Sheridan; the District Court denied that motion on November 3, 2014 and imposed a pre‑filing requirement for Patisso.
Patisso then sought leave to file a motion for reconsideration; the District Court denied his November 19 and December 3, 2014 requests because the filings repeated previously rejected arguments and were not pre‑approved.
Patisso appealed the denial of leave to file the December 3, 2014 motion; the Third Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether District Court abused discretion by denying leave to file reconsideration (Dec. 3, 2014)	Patisso sought review of prior rulings, claiming procedural and substantive errors	District Court: filings were repetitive, previously denied, and subject to pre‑filing approval requirement	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; denial appropriate under law‑of‑the‑case and pre‑filing order
Application of law‑of‑the‑case / mandate rule	Patisso argued earlier litigation or rulings support reconsideration	Court: matters were essentially identical to issues already decided and affirmed on appeal	Held that law‑of‑the‑case bars rehearing absent extraordinary circumstances; none shown
Whether Patisso met standards for reconsideration under Rule (intervening law/new evidence/clear error/manifest injustice)	Patisso asserted various errors and new grounds (including prior NY litigation bar)	Court: no intervening change, no new evidence, and issues were previously litigated	Held: Patisso failed to satisfy any reconsideration grounds; motion improperly seeks to relitigate old matters
Recusal claim based on alleged ex parte communications	Patisso claimed Judge Sheridan had improper ex parte communications and thus must recuse	Court: claim either not raised in Rule 60(b) motion or rests on disagreement with rulings, which does not require recusal	Held: recusal not warranted; claim insufficient and/or forfeited

Farina v. Nokia Inc., 625 F.3d 97 (3d Cir. 2010) (describes law‑of‑the‑case doctrine)
Skretvedt v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 372 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2004) (discusses mandate rule as a species of law of the case)
Schneyder v. Smith, 653 F.3d 313 (3d Cir. 2011) (describes "extraordinary circumstances" exception to law‑of‑the‑case)
Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (standards for granting reconsideration and abuse of discretion review)
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) (motion for reconsideration cannot relitigate old matters or present evidence available earlier)
Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2000) (disagreement with judicial rulings generally not a basis for recusal)
Turner v. Evers, 726 F.2d 112 (3d Cir. 1984) (jurisdictional note on appealability of denial of leave to file reconsideration)
Chipps v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Middle Dist. of Pa., 882 F.2d 72 (3d Cir. 1989) (upholding pre‑filing injunctions for vexatious litigants)