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


File Size: 43.0 kB
Pages: 2
Date: November 4, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 340 Words, 2,078 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8055/64.pdf

Download Order on Motion for Reargument - District Court of Delaware ( 43.0 kB)


Preview Order on Motion for Reargument - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:04-cv-OO703—JJF Document 64 Filed 11/O4/2005 Page1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CATHY D. BROOKS—MCCOLLUM, :
Plaintiff, E
v. i Civil Action N0. 04-703 JJF
EMERALD RIDGE SERVICE CORP. BD. ;
OF DIR., et al., :
Defendants. Z
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion For
Reargument And Correction Of District Court’s Error. (D.I. 61.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the Motion.
By her Motion, Plaintiff requests the Court to reconsider
that portion of its Order dated August 25, 2005 (D.I. 60) denying
Plaintiff’s previous Corrective Motion (D.I. 52). By that
Motion, Plaintiff had requested the Court to amend the caption of
the pleadings to show Emerald Ridge Service Corporation as a
plaintiff rather than a defendant. The Court, citing Maldonado
v. Flynn, 413 A.2d 1251, 1255 (Del. Ch. 1980), concluded that in
a shareholder derivative suit under Delaware law, the corporation
is named as a nominal defendant. Therefore, the Court denied the
Motion.
Motions for reargument or reconsideration “should be granted
sparingly” and may not be used merely to repeat arguments that

Case 1:04-cv-OO703—JJF Document 64 Filed 11/O4/2005 Page 2 of 2
have already been briefed by the parties and considered and
decided by the Court. Ciena Corp. v. Corvis Corg., 352 F.Supp.2d
526, 528 (D. Del. 2005). In the instant Motion, Plaintiff's
argument is essentially the same as the one she presented in her
original Corrective Motion (D.I. 52). Therefore the Court,
having already considered Plaintiff’s argument and decided the
issue, will deny the Motion.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
Motion For Reargument And Correction Of District Court’s Error
(D.I. 61) is DENIED.
November 4 , 2005 ·*‘ li l -. '
DATE ha ITED STA‘ES DISTRICT JUDGE
il
2

Case 1:04-cv-00703-JJF

Document 64

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00703-JJF

Document 64

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 2 of 2