Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01372-JJF Document 29 Filed 10/11/2005 Page1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE: : Chapter 11
AMERICAN METROCOMM :
CORPORATION, et al., : Bankr. Case N0. 00-3358-PJW
Debtors. :
THOMAS ABRAMS, :
Appellant, :
v. : Civ. Act. No. 04-1372-JJF
AMC LIQUIDATING TRUST, :
Appellee. :
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Motion For Reconsideration Of
“Final Order" (D.I. 22) filed by Appellant, Thomas Abrams. By
his Motion, Appellant requests the Court to reconsider its July
29, 2005 Order dismissing the above—captioned appeal with
prejudice.‘ For the reasons discussed, the Court will deny
Appellant's Motion.
The Third Circuit has noted that the purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of law or fact or
1 Plaintiff telephoned the Court to request an extension
of time to file his Reply Brief, and Plaintiff's filing was
further delayed by events surrounding Hurricane Katrina.
Plaintiff has since filed a request for extension of time in
writing (D.I. 28), and the Court concludes that such an extension
is warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Reply Brief (D.I. 27) is
considered timely filed, and therefore, the Court will consider
it in the context of resolving Plaintiff's Motion For
Reconsideration.

Case 1:04-cv-01372-JJF Document 29 Filed 10/11/2005 Page 2 of 3
to present newly discovered evidence." Max’s Seafood Café by
Lou—Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)
(citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d
1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). The purpose of the motion for
reconsideration is not to "rehash arguments already briefed."
Dentsply Int'l. Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 42 F. Supp.2d 385, 419 (D.
Del. 1999). In order to succeed, Plaintiff must show that at
least one of the following criteria applies: (1) a change in the
controlling law; (2) availability of new evidence not available
when the Court made its decision; or (3) need to correct a clear
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Mg;;s
Seafood Café by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d at 677).
"As a general rule, motions for reconsideration should be granted
'sparingly.'” Karr v. Castle, 768 F.Supp. 1087, 1090 (D. Del.
1991).
Reviewing Plaintiff’s motion in light of this standard, the
Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that
reconsideration of his claims is warranted. Plaintiff provides
no grounds supporting reconsideration. Plaintiff does no more
than reiterate the arguments he made in his original filings. In
Plaintiff’s Reply Brief, he reargues that he is a prg sg
litigant, and therefore, this case should not be dismissed based
on his failure to follow the required procedures. As the Court
concluded in its Memorandum Opinion dated July 29, 2005, the
2

Case 1:04-cv-01372-JJF Document 29 Filed 10/11/2005 Page 3 of 3
procedural shortcomings in this case are not mere technicalities.
Rather, they deprive the Court of jurisdiction to entertain this
appeal, and Plaintiff's status as a pro sg litigant does not
impact the effect of the deficiencies. Accordingly, the Court
will deny Plaintiff’s Motion.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this ll day of October
2005, that Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration (D.I. 22) is
DENIED.
2h§¥¤wEsa§§i\
UN ?Ww'" {‘~‘_nISTRICT ‘‘‘‘ JUD,f
3