Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00005-JJF Document 77 Filed 07/O2/2008 Page1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JEFFREY M. NORMAN, :
Plaintiff, ;
v. E CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-005-JJF
DAVID W. ELKIN, RICHARD M. E
SHORIN and :
THE ELKIN GROUP, INC. :
Defendants, E
and E
US MOBILCOMM, INC. ;
Nominal Defendant. Z
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s September 26, 2007 ruling denying
summary judgment. (D.I. 75.) For the reasons discussed,
Defendants’ motion will be denied.
I. Background
Plaintiff Jeffrey M. Norman filed this action in the
Delaware Court of Chancery on December 2, 2005 asserting causes
of action against Defendants in both their individual and
corporate capacities for breach of contract, declaratory relief,
usurpation of corporate opportunities, breaches of fiduciary
duty, breach of duty of disclosure, conversion and
misappropriation, fraudulent representation; aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment. On January
3, 2006, Defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis

Case 1:06-cv-00005-JJF Document 77 Filed 07/O2/2008 Page 2 of 4
of diversity jurisdiction.
On September 26, 2007, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion
and Order (D.I. 70, 71) denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment. In its Memorandum Opinion, the Court concluded, inter
alia, that the date on which Plaintiff knew or should have known
the facts constituting his claims is a material dispute of fact,
and that summary judgement was therefore not appropriate at that
juncture.
II. Discussion
A motion for reconsideration may be granted, and a judgment
altered or amended, only if the Court is presented with; (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability
of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law
or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Cafe v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)(citations omitted).
A motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a
request that a court rethink a decision already made. Sgg Glendon
Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D.
Pa. 1993)(citations omitted).
By their motion, Defendants request reconsideration of the
Court’s conclusion that a material issue of genuine fact exists
regarding the date Plaintiff knew of the facts constituting his
claims is warranted. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s
deposition testimony “conclusively demonstrates" that there is no
2

Case 1:06-cv-OOOO5-JJF Document 77 Filed O7/O2/2008 Page 3 of 4
factual dispute over when he knew or should have known of the
facts that constituted his claims, and that the date on which
Plaintiff knew or should have known of such facts renders his
breach of contract claim untimely.
In response, Plaintiff contends that Defendants present no
new evidence, instead asserting the same evidence and arguments
they presented to the Court in support of their motion for
summary judgment.
The Court concludes that Defendants have not shown that
reconsideration is warranted. Defendants have argued the same
evidence and grounds as previously, which is improper when
seeking reconsideration. gee Glendon Energy, 836 F. Supp. at
1122. To the extent that Defendants have presented deposition
testimony not previously presented, and not newly discovered,
their motion is unsupported. §ee Brambles USA, Inc. V. Blocker,
735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990)(ruling that motions for
reconsideration may not be used “as a means to argue new facts or
issues that inexcusably were not presented to the court in the
matter previously decided"). Further, the Court is not persuaded
that reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error of law
or fact, or to prevent manifest injustice. For these reasons,
Defendants motion will be denied.
3

Case 1:06-cv-00005-JJF Document 77 Filed 07/O2/2008 Page 4 of 4
III. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed, the Court concludes that
Defendants have failed to establish that reconsideration is
warranted. Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion
for Reconsideration.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’
Motion for Reconsideration (D.I. 75) is DENIED.
July 2, 2008 UQ9. { A
UN D ATES ISTRICT JUDG
4