Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01372-JJF Document 23 Filed 08/22/2005 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re: )
)
AMERICAN METROCOMM ) Bankruptcy No. 00-3358 (PJW)
CORFORATION, et ol., )
Debtors, g
tsssrgsnn; ‘‘‘‘*‘‘‘‘‘‘‘’‘‘*‘“‘‘‘a‘‘‘ i ‘‘“*“““*““‘““‘‘“‘‘‘**‘aa*’‘‘‘‘*‘"*’*‘"“
Appellant, g
v. ) Civil Action No. 04-1372 (UF)
AMC LIQUIDATING TRUST, g
Appellee. g
APPELLEE’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANPS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER OF 7/29/2905
COMES NOW, Charles W. Stewart, CPA, the Trust Administrator ofthe AMC
Liquidating Trust, by and through his counsel, and responds to the Appellant’s motion for
reconsideration as set forth below:
1. On July 29, 2005 at Docket Numbers 18 and l9, respectively, this Court
entered its memorandum opinion and final order granting, inter alia the motion to dismiss the
appeal tiled by the AMC Liquidating Trust.
2. On about August 9, 2005 the Appellant filed a motion styled Motion for
Reconsidercztion of "Final Order", Short Response to Appellee Reply Brief and: (J). Motion to
Cure Record Due io "Excusczble Neglect",· (2). Motion to File Designation of Record Ont of
T irne, (3). Motion Reconsideration of Final Order 7/29/2005. This document was entered on the i
Cou1t’s docket on August 16, 2005 at Docket #22.
osmiisisessi
Case 1 :04-cv-01372-JJF Document 23 Filed 08/22/2005 Page 2 of 3
3. Appellant seeks reconsideration of this Court’s Order of July 29, 2005
dismissing the Appellant’s appeal and denying the Appellant’s application to proceed informa
peuperis.
4. The Appellants Motion for Reconsideration is nothing more than his
previously filed Short Response to Appellee Reply Brief with some rudimentary interlineations
made.
5. At no point in his pleading, the substance of` which predated the entry of
the Court’s Order dismissing appeal, does the Appellant address any specific grounds for seeking
a rehearing pursuant to Rule 80l5(a), Federal Bankruptcy Procedure ("F.R.B.P."), nor does he
provide any argument with regard to any analogous reconsideration rules such as Rule 59,
Federal Civil Procedure or the applicable rules found in the Federal Rules of` Appellate Practice.
6. Specifically this Motion for Reconsideration violates Rule 80l l(a),
F.R.B.P. in that it fails to stay with particularity the grounds on which it is based.
7. The Motion for Reconsideration is not supported by any affidavits or other
appropriate evidence.
8. As evidenced by the email messages from Mr. Abrams to Appellees
Counsel, which are attached to COl.11’1S6l’S Declaration filed contemporaneously herewith, Mr.
Abrams is committed to a policy of arbitrary, vexatious, obdurate and protracted litigation and
appeal without bothering himself with the underlying legal merits of his position. This motion is
but one arrow in that quiver.
E)BGl:l8l5933.I i 0574511001

Case 1 :04-cv-01372-JJF Document 23 Filed 08/22/2005 Page 3 of 3
WHEREFORE the Appellee, the Trust Administrator ofthe AMC Liquidatirag
Trust, respectfulty prays this Honorable Court to deny the Motion of Reconsideration and for
such other relief at law and in equity as this Court may deem to he proper.
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
D0-ll0d1 U5 ` tj · ·
t D. McL ii11, J (Bama. l 122)
¤ e Brandywine B tlding
000 West Street, 17th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
1}.0. Box 39}
Wilmington, Delaware l9899—O39l
(302) 571-6634
[email protected]
oe0t:1a1s9;a3.1 057453-WUI