TENIKLE LLC v. AMAZON.COM, INC. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PITTSBURGH
TENIKLE LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AMAZON.COM, INC., et al
Defendants,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:25-CV-01415-MJH
OPINION AND ORDER
On August 17, 2026, this Court dismissed the within action based upon Plaintiff’s
continued failure to follow procedural rules and this Court’s Orders. (ECF NO. 20). 	On
September 14, 2026, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration and moved to alter judgment under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e)1. (ECF No. 22). 	The matter is now ripe for decision.
Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 22), Defendant’s
Brief in Opposition (ECF No. 26), and for the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration will be denied.
I. 	Relevant Standard
“The scope of a motion for reconsideration […] is extremely limited. Such motions are
not to be used as an opportunity to relitigate the case; rather, they may be used only to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Howard Hess Dental
Labs., Inc. v. Dentsply Int'l Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir.2010). “Accordingly, a judgment may
be altered or amended [only] if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the
1 Plaintiff contemporaneously filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit. (ECF No. 27). 	The Federal Circuit has deactivated the appeal until
disposition of this Motion. (ECF Nos. 29 and 30).
Case 2:25-cv-01415-MJH Document 31 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 4

2
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.
II. 	Discussion
In its dismissal Order, the Court evaluated dismissal pursuant to the factors enumerated in
Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984). The six factors are:
(1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the
adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to
discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party or
the attorney was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other
than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the
meritoriousness of the claim or defense.
Id. at 868 (emphases added and omitted). “[N]o single ... factor is dispositive.” Ware v. Rodale
Press, Inc., 322 F.3d 218, 222 (3d Cir. 2003).
Under the first factor, Tenikle argues that it is not responsible for the delays, as they are
product of the actions of counsel.
Under the second factor, Tenikle contends that Defendants are not prejudiced because
they were timely served with process, have requested multiple extensions, and have failed to file
an answer to the Complaint. 	Defendants counter that Tenikle has not demonstrated that it (1)
obtained an issued summons bearing the clerk’s signature and Court’s seal, see Rule 4(a)(1), (b);
or (2) served that summons along with a copy of the Court’s order on all Defendants, see Rule
4(c)(1). (ECF No. 4). Defendants note that Tenikle failed to file a revised version of the
summons after the Court struck the first one containing misrepresentations, and the clerk never
issued a valid summons. 	Defendants maintain that the document allegedly “served” by Tenikle
was an unsigned summons and Complaint to a single defendant without a copy of the Court’s
Case 2:25-cv-01415-MJH Document 31 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 4

3
order as required. Thus, Defendants contend that Tenikle’s argument, that Amazon has shared
blame, is without merit.
Under the third factor, Tenikle maintains that the case has been pending for less than a
year, and any delays are a shared responsibility of the parties. Under the fourth factor, Tenikle
asserts that there is no evidence that it has delayed the proceedings willfully or in bad faith. 	In
response to these arguments, Defendants maintain that Tenikle received multiple notices that its
case would be dismissed if it failed to comply with the Court’s orders. Defendants further
contend that Tenikle repeatedly ignored the Court’s directives and treated its orders as mere
suggestions. Finally, Defendants argue that Tenikle has not provided any justification from
Tenikle or its counsel for repeatedly ignoring the Court’s orders and procedures.
Under the fifth factor, Tenikle argues that there is no basis in the record for concluding
that a lesser sanction would not be effective. 	Defendants contend that Tenikle’s continued
refusal to provide accurate information and abide by the Court’s orders confirms that dismissal is
warranted and the appropriate remedy.
Finally, under the sixth factor, Tenikle contends that meritoriousness of its claim does
not warrant dismissal.
Here, at its core, Tenikle’s Motion for Reconsideration fails to outline “an intervening
change in controlling law,” “new evidence,” or “clear error of law or fact.” 	Without such
arguments, the Court is not obligated to revisit its dismissal decision. 	Nevertheless, Defendants’
counterpoints to Tenikle’s Poulis arguments are well-taken and confirm the Court’s original
analysis under Poulis. 	Tenikle has not persuaded the Court that it erred in dismissing the case or
that reconsideration is warranted under Rule 59(e).
Accordingly, Tenikle’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
Case 2:25-cv-01415-MJH Document 31 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Dated: October 14, 2026
BY THE COURT:
MARILYN J. HORAN
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-01415-MJH Document 31 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 4