ORDER

MARIAN BLANK HORN, District Judge.

Pro se plaintiff, Corey Lea, filed a motion to reconsider this court's April 25, 2016 Order, which dismissed plaintiffs complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for lack of standing, and on collateral estoppel grounds, pursuant to RCFC 59(a) and RCFC 60. See Lea v. United States, 2016 WL 1697941, at -11 (Fed. Cl. April 25, 2016). In his somewhat confusing motion for reconsideration, plaintiff appears to contend that he has standing, as a pro se litigant, to pursue this action on behalf of the now-dissolved corporation Corey Lea, Inc. because he is or was an officer or director of the allegedly dissolved corporation. As this court explained in its April 25, 2016 Order, however, Mr. Lea, an individual, cannot represent the corporation Corey Lea, Inc. as an individual pro se litigant, even if it is a dissolved entity. See id. Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff moves for reconsideration on the basis that Corey Lea, Inc. has standing to pursue the claims Mr. Lea raised in his complaint, plaintiff's argument fails because Corey Lea, Inc. would have to be represented by counsel (see RCFC 83.1) and the corporation was not a party in the case.

Briefly summarized and construed liberally, as explained in more detail in this court's April 25, 2016 Order dismissing plaintiffs complaint in case number 15-292C, the complaint in the above-captioned case appeared to allege that, in 2007, the now-dissolved company Corey Lea, Inc. obtained a loan from Farmers National Bank to purchase farm property. This loan was guaranteed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) through a loan guarantee agreement. As a result of the loan guarantee agreement, both Farmers National Bank and the USDA FSA held mortgages on the farm property. In 2009, after foreclosure proceedings on the property concluded, Farmers National Bank was granted a Judgment and Order of Sale on the property. Since the foreclosure, plaintiff has initiated several actions across the federal judiciary system, including the above-captioned case.2 Plaintiffs most recent complaint in this court, case number 15-292C, attempted to allege several breaches of contract, as well as takings claims.

This court's April 25, 2016 Order dismissing plaintiff's complaint found that, with regard to plaintiff's claims based on alleged takings, tort, and implied-in-fact contract, his complaint was dismissed on collateral estoppel grounds because two other judges on this court had previously dismissed those claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and plaintiff had failed to cure the identified jurisdictional deficiencies in the complaint filed as case number 15-292C assigned to the undersigned.3 See Lea v. United States, No. 14-44C, 2014 WL 2101367 (dismissing plaintiff's claims alleging tortious interference and fraud based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Lea v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. at 444-446 (dismissing plaintiff's claims alleging contractual and regulatory takings under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, due process violations under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, and implied-in-fact contract). With regard to plaintiffs remaining breach of contract claims, this court found that "Mr. Lea, as a pro se plaintiff representing himself in his personal capacity, is the wrong party to assert those claims." See Lea v. United States, 2016 WL 1697941, at *11. The court explained:

Id.

Moreover, the April 25, 2016 Order further explained:

Id.

In plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, Mr. Lea argues that this court improperly concluded that plaintiff did not have standing, and plaintiff asserts that "[t]he defendant did not raise the issue of a dissolved corporation having standing in this court," as well as that "this suit is merely winding up the affairs of a dissolved corporation." Notwithstanding, it remains the conclusion of this court that Corey Lea, the individual, cannot litigate on behalf of the corporation Corey Lea, Inc. See RCFC 83.1(a)(3). Plaintiff has not raised any new issues for this court's consideration that would lead this court to reconsider its dismissal of plaintiffs complaint in its April 25, 2016 Order.

Reconsideration of a judgment is not intended to permit a party to retry its case when it previously was afforded a full and fair opportunity to do so. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has stated that: "The decision whether to grant reconsideration lies largely within the discretion of the [trial] court." Yuba Natural Res., Inc. v. United States, 904 F .2d 1577, 1583 (Fed. Cir.), reh'g denied (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Carter v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 316, 318, 518 F.2d 1199, 1199 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1076, reh'g denied, 424 U.S. 950 (1976); Osage Tribe of Indians of Okla., 97 Fed. Cl. 345, 348 (2011)(discussing RCFC 59(a) and 60(b)); Oenga v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 80, 83 (2011) (discussing RCFG 59(a)); Webster v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 321, 324, recons. denied, 93 Fed. Cl. 676 (2010) (discussing RCFC 60(b)); Alpha l, L.P. ex rel. Sands v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 126, 129 (2009) (discussing RCFC 54(b) and 59(a)); Banks v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 288, 291-92 (2008) (discussing RCFC 54(b) and 59(a)); Corrigan v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 665, 667-68 (2006) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); Tritek Techs., Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 740, 752 (2005); Keeton Corr., Inc. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 251, 253 (2004) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); Paalan v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 99, 105 (2003), aff'd, 120 F. App'x 817 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 844 (2005); Citizens Fed. Bank. FSB v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 793, 794 (2002) (discussing RCFC 59(a)).

"Motions for reconsideration must be supported `by a showing of extraordinary circumstances which justify relief.'" Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226, 1235 (Fed. Ctr. 2004) (quoting Fru-Con Constr. Corp. v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 298, 300 (1999)), reh'g en banc denied (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 826 (2005) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); see also Fiskars. Inc. v. Hunt Mfo. Co., 279 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("Rule 60(b)(6) is available only in extraordinary circumstances and only when the basis for relief does not fall within any of the other subsections of Rule 60(b)." (citing Marquip, Inc. v. Fosber America, Inc., 198 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1999), reh'g denied (Fed. Cir.2000)); Provident Sav. Bank v. Popovich, 71 F.3d 696, 700 (7th Cir. 1995)); Oenga v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. at 83; Seldovia Native Ass'n Inc. v. United States, 36 Fed. Cl. 593, 594 (1996), aff'd, 144 F.3d 769 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (discussing RCFC 59(a)). Generally, "[t]he cases seem to make [a] fault/no fault distinction the controlling factor in determining whether extraordinary circumstances will be found or not. In a vast majority of cases finding that extraordinary circumstances do exist so as to justify relief, the movant is completely without fault. . . ." 12 Joseph T. McLaughlin and Thomas D. Rowe, Jr., Moore's Federal Practice § 60.48[3][b] (3rd ed. 2008) (discussing RCFC 60(b)(6)); see also Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F.3d 1353, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993)) (discussing RCFC 60(b)(6)).

Courts must address reconsideration motions with "exceptional care." Carter v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. at 318, 518 F.2d at 1199; see also Global Computer Enters. v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 466, 468 (2009) (discussing RCFC 59(a)). .The three primary grounds that justify reconsideration are: `(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.'" Delaware Valley Floral Grp., Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets. LLC, 597 F.3d 1374, 1383 (Fed. Cir.2010); see also Griffin v. United States, 96 Fed. Ct. 1, 7 (2010), mot. to amend denied, appeal dismissed, 454 F. App'x 899 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); Totolo/King Joint Venture v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 442, 444 (2009) (quoting Stockton E. Water Dist. v. United States, 76 Fed. Ct. 497, 499 (2007), aff'd in part, vacated part, in rev'd in part on other grounds, 583 F.3d 1344 (2005) (citation omitted) (discussing RCFC 59(a))) appeal dismissed, 431 F. App'x 895 (Fed. Cir.), reh'g denied (2011) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); Dairyland Power Coop. v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 615, 652 (2009), recons. denied, No.04-106C, 2010 WL 637793 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2010), aff'd in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 2011 WL 2519519 (Fed. Cir. June 24, 2011) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); Matthews v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 524, 526 (2006) (citations omitted) (discussing RCFC 59); Prati v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 373, 376 (2008) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); Tritek Techs., Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. at 752; Bannum. Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 241, 243 (2003) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); Citizens Fed. Bank, FSB v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. at 794; Strickland v. United States, 36 Fed. Cl. 651, 657, recons. denied (1996) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); Bishop v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 281, 286, recons. denied (1992) (discussing RUSCC 59). "Manifest," as in "manifest injustice," is defined as "clearly apparent or obvious." Ammex. Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 555, 557 (2002), aff'd, 384 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir.2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 948 (2005) (discussing RCFC 59). "Where a party seeks reconsideration on the ground of manifest injustice, it cannot prevail unless it demonstrates that any injustice is `apparent to the point of being almost indisputable.'" Griffin v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. at 7 (quoting Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 779, 785 (2006), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 536 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir.2008)). "A court, therefore, will not grant a motion for reconsideration if the movant `merely reasserts . . . arguments previously made . . . all of which were carefully considered by the court.'" Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. at 557 (quoting Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 157, 164 (1993), aff'd, 50 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir.), reh'g denied, en banc suggestion declined (Fed. Cir. 1995)) (emphasis in original); see also Griffin v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. at 7; Bowlino v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 551, 562, recons. denied (2010) (discussing RCFC 59(a) and 60(b)); Webster v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. at 324 (discussing RCFC 59(a) and 60(b)); Pinckney v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 550, 555 (2009); Tritek Techs., Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. a 1752.

In sum, it is logical and well established that, "`[t]he litigation process rests on the assumption that both parties present their case once, to their best advantage;' a motion for reconsideration thus should not be based on evidence that was readily available at the time the motion was heard." Seldovia Native Ass'n Inc. v. United States, 36 Fed. Cl. at 594 (quoting Aerolease Long Beach v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 342, 376, aff'd, 39 F.3d 1198 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (table)). "Post-opinion motions to reconsider are not favored, especially `where a party has had a fair opportunity to . . . litigate the point in issue.'" Aerolease Long Beach v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. at 376 (quoting Prestex, Inc. v. United States, 4 Cl. Ct. 317, 318, aff'd, 746 F.2d 1489 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing Gen. Elec. Co. v. United States, 189 Ct. Cl. 116, 117-18, 416 F.2d 1320, 1321 (1969))) (omission in original; other citation omitted).

Not only does Mr. Lea's motion to reconsider fail to raise any new issues, but, it demonstrates his refusal to understand the rules on legal representation of corporate entities clearly set forth in RCFC 83.1 . Plaintiff's argument does not even address the clear prohibition in RCFC 83.1 directing that pro se individuals "may not represent a corporation, an entity, or any other person in any other proceeding before this court." RCFC 83.1(a)(3). Further, to the extent that plaintiff argues that the allegedly now-dissolved corporation Corey Lea, Inc. has standing to pursue its claims against the United States in this court, Mr. Lea fails to distinguish that Corey Lea, Inc. is not a plaintiff in the above-captioned case. Indeed, in the April 25, 2016 Order, this court specifically indicated:

See Lea v. United States, 2016 WL 1697941, at *11.

Additionally, notwithstanding plaintiffs attempt in his motion for reconsideration to reargue his motion for summary judgment, because the court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's claims, the court deemed that motion moot in its April 25, 2016 Order. See id., at *12; see also Booth v. United States, 990 F.2d 617, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Estes Express Lines v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 538, 550 (2015) (dismissing parties' cross motions for summary judgment as moot because the court did not possess jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs claim).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and because plaintiff has failed to raise any new issues that would warrant reconsideration of this court's April 25, 2016 Order, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.