Free Compendium of Unreported Decisions - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01551-JJF Document 261-4 Filed 05/29/2007 Page1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-01551-JJF Document 261-4 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 2 of 3
LEXSEE
HERMAN KELLY, Plaintiff, v. MBNA AMERICA BANK, Defendant. A
Civil Action N0. 06-228-JJF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76481
October 20, 2006, Decided _
CORE TERMS: reconsideration, new evidence, discov— Because Plaintiff was granted [*2] in forma pau-
tmfirxsiist ;;jL;;C€’ Clear cmm imcn/cmng’ rcargu- peris status, the Court conducted an initial screening pur-
’ p p suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and on July 18, 2003, dis-
.. 'dth l' `tWl ff&Ab f f`l-
ggtUg,§E,g [*11 Herman K—="y» *’*a·¤*·f¤ Pm De [EEZ?. a§e°a“'Zi§1Z.gZLZ`Sn WZSZE reher SESS QSQMZZJ.
’ ’ ` (D.I. 23.) In the same order, the Court granted a Motion
For National Arbitration Forum, Defendant: Ashley DisgiisiylidtbglNggggnlf;?n?;;iShT;1a;biA]i?I1);;§Qn?g
Blake Smzcn The Bayald Firm’ Wilmmgtom DE` Vaiiate Couriss Judgment/Order dated July 18, 2006,"
For Wolpoff & Abramson, Defendant: Neal J. Levitsky, Z;/(mclllgh? §?L;rtPi;§1iE??€;l;§ 211;/gogolagsogégogsécgsgzi
FOX Rothschlld LLP’ Wllmmgwm DE' Discovery from Defendants NAF and Wolpoff &
Juocns; Joseph J. Farnan Jr., UNITED srr-mss Dis- 2§“;‘1'“;‘;l';· dgjg OI;i‘;;1Sth° f°"’g°i“g "*’s°“S> tm
rizicr Juoce. “ Y ° ‘
OPINION sv; Joseph J. ramah Jr. IL STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard for obtaining relief under Rule 59(e) is
OPINION: difficult for Plaintiff to meet. The purpose of a motion
for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or
MEMORANDUM ORDER fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Harsco
Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 {3d Cir. 1985). A
l` BACKGROUND motion for reconsideration may be granted ifthe moving
Plaintiff, who a ears pro se and was granted in party shows: (1) an intervenin change inthe controllin.
PP E 8
forma au eris status, tiled suit a ainst Defendants law; 2 the availabilit of new evidence that *3 was
P P S Y
MBNA America Bank, ("MBNA"), the National Arbitra— not available when the court issued its order; or (3) the
tion Forum ("NAF"), and the law firm of Wolpoff & need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
Abramson, L.L.P. ("Wolpoff & Abramson") alleging manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176
discrimination, illegal high compound interest prime F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
rate, harassment, breach of contract agreement, double A t. f .d t. . t I
jeopardy, interference, fraud, sanctions/injunction, false d 313102 Or triliotnsl emrtlonthisk md Primer?]
prosecution, false advertising, deceit accounting practice, gmgm C dn 3 equci 3 a cou rr In 8 wslon a`
conspiracy, embezzlement, misrepresentation, neg1i— E? iélmaggé ic;)
mmcm Compremm Wm rm¤€t·¤g» and r——°—_‘”i“m——( 0Z'§ FLT u...2S.a or reconsideration mf na Ee ...51
extortion. (D.l. 2.) He also alleged denial of his constitu- ,, tg f t . th { . bl
taohai rights to access to the courts, due process, equal as A mms O argue "°‘” ac S °l '$s““ A '“€"°P‘S"‘ Y
protection a jury trial enjoyment of life appointed 3/Cr; ngt pécscnmtd to gw clourt m tl? Taucr prcvlgusly
_ _ ’ . ’ ’ eci e ." ram es U A, nc. v. B oc er, 735 F. upp.
°°“"“|’ and d'SC°V€ry‘ Id" 1239, 1240 go. Del. 1990). Reargumeht, however, may
be appropriate where "the Court has patently misunder-
Page 1

Case 1:04-cv-01551-JJF Document 261-4 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 3 of 3
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76481, *
stood a party, or has made a decision outside the adver— Plaintiff moves the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
sarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has Q, to compel NAF and Wolpoff & Abramson to pro—
made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension." vide discovery. (D.I. 34.) It does not appear that Plaintiff
Erambles USA, 735 F.Supp. at l24l (D. Del. 1990) (ci- utilized the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to obtain
tations omitted); See also D. Del. LR 7.I .5. discovery. Indeed, the motion tiled by Plaintiff does not
comply with the requisites of Rule 37ga] inasmuch as it
III. DISCUSSION does not contain a certification that Plaintiffin good faith
. . . . conferred or attempted to confer with NAF or Wolpoff &
Plaintiff does not argue there was an intervening Ab . . *
. . . . . ramson to secure the discovery without [ 5] court
change in the controlling law or the availability [*4] of . . . .
. . action. Therefore, the motron will be denied.
new evidence that was not available when the Order was
entered dismissing the claims against NAF and Wolpoff
& Abramson. He appears to argue that the Court over- V' CONCLUSION
looked facts and as a result reconsideration is warranted. THEREFORE, at Wilmington this 20 day of Octo-
The Court thoroughly reviewed the Complaint and ben 2006’ IT IS ORDERED that
the Court's Order dated July 18, 2006. The law has not I. The Motion to Vacate Court's Judgment/Order
changed and there is no new evidence. Plaintiff merely dated July 18,2006, construed as a Motion for Reconsid-
does not agree with the Court's ruling. There is no need eration (D.I. 31) is DENIED.
to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent mani— . . .
test tntdsttee. Plaintiff has net demonstrated any ofthe DE,_§iE”l*}·€ Mm to Comte <*·S¤¤V€ty grounds necessary to warrant reconsideration and, there- '
fore, his motion will be denied. Joseph J, Faman Jr_
W. MOTION TO COMPEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2