NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

ROBERT B. KUGLER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Comité de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agrícolas ("CATA"), Antonio Rivera Martinez, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste ("PCUN") and Northwest Forest Worker Center ("NFWC") move for reconsideration of this Court's December 7, 2015 Opinion and Order granting summary judgment to the following Defendants: Thomas E. Perez, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Labor; United States Department of Labor; Portia Wu, in her official capacity as Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration; Jeh Charles Johnson, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Homeland Security; and León Rodriguez, in his official capacity as Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service. Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of this Court's holding that CATA and Plaintiff Rivera do not have standing to challenge 20 C.F.R. § 655.10(f)(4). For the reasons expressed below, Plaintiffs' "Amended Motion for Relief Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rules 59 and 60" (Doc. No. 54) is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants on June 12, 2015 (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiffs brought an Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") challenge against various provisions of the Final Rule entitled "Wage Methodology for the Temporary Non-Agricultural Employment H-2B Program." 80 Fed. Reg. 24146 (Apr. 29, 2015) ("2015 Wage Rule"). See Compl. at 1-3 (challenging 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.10(b)(1)-(2), 655.10(f)(1)(i)-(iii), 655.10(f)(4)). Defendants filed their Answer on July 8, 2015 (Doc. No. 13). On July 15, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment (Doc. No. 21). Defendants opposed Plaintiffs' motion and cross-moved for summary judgment on July 17, 2015 (Doc. No. 27).

On December 7, 2015, this Court issued an Opinion deciding the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment (Doc. No. 48). The Opinion held that Plaintiffs failed to establish standing to challenge any provision of the 2015 Wage Rule, and the accompanying Order entered judgment for Defendants and against Plaintiffs (Doc. No. 49). On January 4, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their "Motion for Relief Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rules 59 and 60", seeking reconsideration of this Court's decision that they failed to establish standing to challenge any provision of the 2015 Wage Rule (Doc. No. 50).1 On January 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an "Amended Motion for Relief Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rules 59 and 60" (Doc. No. 54).2

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion seeks reconsideration of this Court's decision that CATA and Plaintiff Rivera failed to establish standing to challenge Section 655.10(f)(4) of the 2015 Wage Rule. See Pls.' Amd. Mot., Proposed Order (Doc. No. 54-2). PCUN and NFWC no longer seek reconsideration of this Court's decision on their standing to challenge the 2015 Wage Rule. See id.3 Furthermore, CATA and Plaintiff Rivera do not seek reconsideration of this Court's decision regarding any provision of the 2015 Wage Rule other than Section 655.10(f)(4). See id. Section 655.10(f)(4) provides that, where an employer submits a permissible category of survey, "the employer must submit . . . specific information about the survey methodology, including such items as sample size and source, sample selection procedures, and survey job descriptions, to allow a determination of the adequacy of the data provided and validity of the statistical methodology used in conducting the survey."

Defendants timely opposed Plaintiffs' Amended Motion on February 22, 2016 (Doc. No. 57). Plaintiffs filed their Reply on February 29, 2016 (Doc. No. 58). On March 2, 2016, this Court granted Defendants leave to file their Sur-Reply (Doc. Nos. 61 & 62). Plaintiffs filed a "Notice of Supplemental Information" on May 17, 2016 (Doc. No. 63). On May 25, 2016, Defendants moved for leave to file a response to Plaintiffs' May 17, 2016 Notice (Doc. No. 65), which this Court will deny as unnecessary.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Plaintiffs seek reconsideration pursuant to Rules 59(a)(1)(B),4 59(e), and 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Pls.' Amd. Mot. ¶¶ 55-56. The scope of a motion for reconsideration is "extremely limited" and such motions are "not to be used as an opportunity to relitigate the case[.]" Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011). Although motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b)(6) "are often used interchangeably," these motions "do serve difference purposes and sometimes product different consequences." Petrossian v. Collins, 523 Fed. Appx. 861, 863-64 (3d Cir. 2013).

A motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) "must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Wiest v. Lynch, 710 F.3d 121, 128 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010)). For reconsideration purposes, "new evidence . . . means evidence that a party could not earlier submit to the court because the evidence was not previously available." Blystone, 664 F.3d at 415-16 (quoting Howard Hess Dental Labs., Inc. v. Dentsply Int'l Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 252 (3d Cir. 2010)).

Rule 60(b)(6) "is a catch-all provision that authorizes a court to grant relief from a final judgment for `any . . . reason" other than those listed elsewhere in the Rule. Cox v. Horn, 757 F.3d 113, 120 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)). A motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) is granted "only in cases evidencing extraordinary circumstances." See Petrossian, 523 Fed. Appx. at 564 (citing Morris v. Horn, 187 F.3d 333, 341 (3d Cir. 1999)). A Rule 60(b)(6) motion is not "a substitute for an appeal" or "a means for seeking review of this Court's previous opinion in the same case." Id. (citing Reform Party v. Allegheny Cnty. Dep't of Elections, 174 F.3d 305, 312 (3d Cir. 1999)).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs argue that they have standing because "each can demonstrate concrete injury from this regulation's impact on wage rates and job opportunities for workers in the landscaping industry in southeastern Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey, and northern Delaware." Pls.' Mot. ¶ 8. Plaintiffs appear to misunderstand both the constitutional requirements for standing and the extremely limited scope of motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b)(6).

This Court held that Plaintiff Rivera did not have standing to challenge any provision of the 2015 Wage Rule because he did not "testify to facts supporting any cognizable Article III injury." See Dec. 7, 2015 Op. at 14 (Doc. No. 48). Plaintiff Rivera did not testify that he was "currently searching or imminently planning to search for another job in competition with H-2B workers, or that his current employer intends to reduce his wage because of competition with H-2B workers." Id. at 14-15. Plaintiff Rivera averred only that he would be harmed "[i]f [he] were to look for another job within the landscaping industry[.]" Id. at 15 (citing Rivera Aff. ¶ 10 (emphasis added)). But as this Court previously explained, such "some day" intentions are wholly insufficient to establish standing. Id. at 15 (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 564 (1992)). Furthermore, this Court held that CATA did not have standing to challenge any provision of the 2015 Wage Rule because CATA introduced no evidence that it had standing in its own right or on behalf of its members. See id. at 15-16. CATA failed to identify any specific CATA member harmed by the challenged provisions of the 2015 Wage Rule. Id.

Plaintiff Rivera and CATA now move for reconsideration of this Court's decision that they did not have standing to challenge Section 655.10(f)(4). Both Plaintiff Rivera and CATA fail to demonstrate that they are entitled to reconsideration under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)(6). They do not demonstrate a change in controlling law, dispositive new evidence, or manifest injustice so as to make this Court reconsider its Opinion pursuant to Rule 59(e). Furthermore, they fail to demonstrate any "extraordinary circumstances" that would entitle them to relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

First, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate they are entitled to reconsideration due to an intervening change in controlling law. This Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to decide Plaintiffs' challenge to Section 655.10(f)(4). See Dec. 7, 2015 Op. at 15-17. The controlling law in this Court's Opinion was therefore Article III of the United States Constitution, and the binding precedents interpreting Article III's standing requirements. The constitutional requirements of Article III standing have not changed since this Court's December 7, 2015 Opinion. Any changes to the challenged regulations are irrelevant for the purposes of a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration.5

Second, Plaintiffs fail to provide any new evidence that justifies reconsideration of this Court's Opinion that Section 655.10(f)(4) does not cause a cognizable Article III injury to Plaintiff Rivera or to CATA, either in its own right or on behalf of its members. This Court may consider only "new evidence"—that is, evidence that Plaintiffs "could not earlier submit to the court because the evidence was not previously available." Blystone, 664 F.3d at 415-16 (quoting Howard Hess Dental Labs., 602 F.3d at 252). Neither Nelson Carrasquillo6 nor Plaintiff Rivera's7 supplemental declarations—written and filed after this Court's December 7, 2015 Opinion—contain "new evidence" not previously available to Plaintiffs at the summary judgment stage. Furthermore, the evidence Plaintiffs cite regarding prevailing wage survey requests for the Maryland seafood industry is completely irrelevant to whether Section 655.10(f)(4) threatens imminent harm to Plaintiff Rivera, CATA, or specific CATA members. See Pls.' Amd. Mot. ¶¶ 27-29; Pls. Reply Br. at 1-3. This Court also declines to consider the evidence presented in Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Information (Doc. No. 63).8

Third, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate any "manifest injustice" that entitles them to reconsideration of this Court's Opinion. Plaintiffs' argument that they will suffer "manifest injustice" if not allowed to bring their challenge to Section 655.10(f)(4), despite their lack of Article III standing, is wholly unavailing. They have failed to demonstrate a cognizable Article III injury. This Court does not have the constitutional power to hear their challenge to Section 655.10(f)(4).

Finally, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate any "extraordinary circumstances" that would entitle them to reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). Plaintiff Rivera fails to demonstrate that he suffers a concrete and particularized injury due to the challenged regulation. Again, it is irrelevant to Plaintiff Rivera's standing that other workers in his industry and geographic area may be harmed by the challenged regulation. CATA also fails to demonstrate any "extraordinary circumstances" that entitle it to reconsideration of this Court's decision that it does not have standing, either in its own right or on behalf of its members, to challenge Section 655.10(f)(4).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons expressed above, Plaintiffs' Amended Motion (Doc. No. 54) is DENIED.