KURT D. ENGELHARDT, District Judge
Before the Court is CMS' Motion for Reconsideration, seeking reconsideration of this Court's Order and Reasons of November 25, 2002. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
After this Court denied CMS' attempts to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims, CMS filed a third-party claim against John W. Osborn (the lawyer who represented the plaintiffs in the underlying transaction) and his law firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom LLP ("Skadden Arps"). According to CMS, "[i]f the plaintiffs were misled . . . by CMS . . ., then that could only be as a result of Mr. Osborn and Skadden, Arps failing to fulfill their duties to represent, counsel and advise their clients . . ., to explain the . . . transactions to their clients, to be sure that their clients understood the . . . transactions and be sure that their clients understood their obligations . . . ." CMS' 3d Party Compl. at ¶ 8. Osborn and Skadden Arps moved to dismiss CMS' claim on grounds, inter alia, that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Osborn and that CMS' claim against Skadden, Arps is barred by peremption under Louisiana Revised Statute section 9:5605. This Court granted the motion in an Order and Reasons dated November 25, 2002. CMS now seeks reconsideration of this Court's ruling regarding peremption.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
"A court's reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly." Johnson v. Tuff-N-Rumble Management, Inc., 2000 WL 1808486, *2 (ED. La. 2000) (Vance, J.). "The burden of establishing a valid reason for reconsideration is on the moving party, and the determination of whether that burden has been met rests within the discretion of the court." Loper v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 2001 WL 263098, *1 (E.D. La. 2001) (Fallon, J.).
In support of reconsideration, CMS cites the same cases and makes precisely the same arguments that it made prior to this Court's November 25 ruling. This Court carefully weighed each of these arguments before its original ruling and has done so again. Time has not changed this Court's conclusion.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that CMS' Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. However, this Court is of the opinion that its ruling regarding the interpretation section 9:5605 involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that immediate appeal of the ruling could materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation.