Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:85-cv—00053-LFS Document 191 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 1 of 2
Potter
g Andgrson Somers S. Piigaiilgi
gy COYYOOH LLP Attomey at Law
302 984-6014
302 6584192 FAX
1313 N0IT1¤ M21T1<€1 SWTY [email protected]
PO. Box 951
Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
302 9846000
August 10, 2007
WWW.p0t10FflH(1CfS()H. COIII
BY CM/ECF
The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge
United States District Court
Lock Box 8
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Martin v. The Delaware Law School of Widener University, Inc.
Case No. 85-53-JJF
Dear Magistrate Thynge:
This letter will serve as the response of The Delaware Law School of Widener
University, Inc. (the "Law Schoo1”) to the self-styled Rule 60(b)(4), (5) or (6) Motion to Reopen of
plaintiff James L. Martin (the "Rule 60 Motion") in the captioned matter.
This action was resolved originally by the Court as to my client on a Motion to
Dismiss filed by the Law School. That motion was granted in an opinion in Martin v. Delaware
Law School of Widener University, Inc., 628 F.Supp. 1288 (D.Del. 1984) aff` d 884 F.2d 1384 (3d
Cir. 1989) cert. denied; 493 U.S. 875, 110 S.Ct. 212 (1989) rehearing denied; 493 U.S. 970, 110
S.Ct. 421 (1989), cert. denied; 493 U.S. 966, 110 S.Ct. 411 (1989) rehearing denied; 493 U.S.
1038, 110 S.Ct. 766 (1990)
Contrary to any implication in plaintiffs instant motion, the plaintiff did not seek
any relief against the Law School which related in any way to Mr. Martin’s driver’s license or his
driving record. Indeed, as explained in the 1985 opinion of Judge Farnan, the relief sought from
my client was monetary damages, attomey’s fees and a declaratory judgment against certain
alleged acts by defendants in this case (628 F.Supp. at 1293). Plaintiff s claims against the Law
School were based on alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 42 USC §§ 1983, 1985
and 1986, Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes and constitutional
provisions, and alleged tortious conduct related to plaintiff s response to a question on his Law
School application and actions by the Law School thereafter, as well as alleged participation by the
Law School in an unspecified conspiracy with all other defendants. Other than the alleged
conspiracy claim, which was dismissed due to the conclusory pleading of the alleged conspiracy,
there was no conduct alleged against the Law School which referred or related to Mr. Martin’s
driver’s license or matters related thereto. As a result, the instant motion has no relation to the Law
School.

Case 1 :85-cv—00053-LFS Document 191 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge
August l0, 2007
Page Two
Moreover, although the Rule 60 Motion purports to be raised under Rule 60(b)(4),
(5) or (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff has offered no basis related to the Law
School and how the specified subsections are applicable to any judgment in favor of the Law
School.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs Rule 60 Motion should be denied with respect to the
Law School and the Law School should be excused from any other proceedings related to said
motion.
Should the Court require a further submission or have any questions, I am at the
Court’s convenience.
Respectfully,
Somers S. Price, Jr. (DSBA #2%
SSP/mlc/811995/12983 ·
cc: Mr. James L. Martin — By First Class Mail and By CM/ECF
Administrative Office of PA Courts — By First Class Mail
Pemrsylvania Attomey General, Litigation Section — By First Class Mail
Stuart B. Young, Esquire — By First Class Mail
Tybout, Redfeam, & Pell — By First Class Mail