Free Order on Motion for Costs - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00911-GMS

Document 187

Filed 08/04/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JAN KOPACZ, AND KATHY KOPACZ, Plaintiffs, v. DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY, AND CRAIG SWETT, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 04-911 (GMS)

ORDER Presently before the court in the above-captioned matter is the plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment, and the plaintiff's fourth motion for attorney's fees and costs. As to the motion to amend, the plaintiff argues that the defendant failed to renew its motion for judgment as a matter of law after the close of all the evidence. The defendant points out that post-trial motions were discussed after the close of evidence during an in-chambers conference to discuss the verdict sheet. The court recalls this conference and holds that the defendant's discussion of post-trial motions constituted a renewal of its motion. The plaintiff further argues that the court's ruling of July 5, 2006 was in error because the court failed to draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor in granting the defendant's motion to amend the judgment. The plaintiff's argument is plainly insufficient because it fails to demonstrate that the court committed a "clear error of law." Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., 395 F. Supp. 2d 115, 117 (D. Del. Oct. 18, 2005) (magistrate opinion). As to the motion for attorney's fees and costs, the court's denial of such fees and costs on July 5 of this year remains in effect.

Case 1:04-cv-00911-GMS

Document 187

Filed 08/04/2006

Page 2 of 2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The plaintiff's motions (D.I. 176, 177) be DENIED.

Dated: August 4, 2006

/s/ Gregory M. Sleet UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2