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

Case 1:04-cv—00617—SLR Document 95 Filed 05/11/2005 Page1 013
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ROBERT E. BROWN and )
SHIRLEY H. BROWN, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Civ. No. 04-617-SLR
v. )
)
INTERBAY FUNDING, LLC, and )
LAGRECA & QUINN REAL ESTATE )
SERVICES, INC., )
)
Defendants. )
O R D E R
At Wilmington this Hw•day of May, 2005, having considered
plaintiffs' motions and the papers submitted in connection
therewith;
IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons that follow, plaintiffs'
motion for default judgment (D.I. 38) is denied, plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration (D.I. 37) is denied, and plaintiffs'
motion to amend (D.I. 37) is denied unless timely and correctly
supplemented:
I. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 28, 2004.
(D.I. 1) On July 19, 2004, defendant Interbay filed a motion to
dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. I2(b)(6). (D.I. 8) Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A), defendant Interbay did not have to
answer plaintiffs' complaint until I0 days after the court had
ruled on its motion to dismiss. This court ruled on defendant

Case 1:04-cv—00617—SLR Document 95 Filed 05/11/2005 Page 2 of 3
Interbay's motion to dismiss on November 8, 2004, and defendant
Interbay answered plaintiffs’ complaint ten days thereafter.
(D.I. 33, 36) Thus, defendant Interbay has not failed to defend
against plaintiffs’ allegations and default judgment is not
appropriate.
2. The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to
“correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence." Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc.
v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). Accordingly, a
court may alter or amend its judgment if the movant demonstrates
at least one of the following: (1) a change in the controlling
law; (2) availability of new evidence not available when summary
judgment was granted; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of
law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. gee ia;
3. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any of the
aforementioned grounds to warrant a reconsideration of the
court’s November 8, 2004 order, as they have failed to
demonstrate that defendants misrepresented anything to this
court. No more motions for reconsideration of this issue shall
be filed by the parties.
4. Local Rule 15.1 requires that a party moving to amend a
pleading attach the pleading as amended to the motion to amend.
It also requires that the amended pleading indicate in what
respect the amended version differs from the original version by
2

Case 1:04-cv—00617—SLR Document 95 Filed 05/11/2005 Page 3 of 3
bracketing materials to be deleted and underlining materials to
be added.
5. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend does not comply with Local
Rule 15.1. On or before May 25, 2005, plaintiffs shall file and
serve their amended complaint and a version of the amended
complaint indicating how it differs from the original complaint,
in compliance with Local Rule 15.1. Failure to comply with this
deadline will result in the motion to amend being denied. On or
before June 8, 2005, defendants may file any responses to
p1aintiffs' motion to amend.
United Statgs District Judge
3

Case 1:04-cv-00617-SLR

Document 95

Filed 05/11/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00617-SLR

Document 95

Filed 05/11/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00617-SLR

Document 95

Filed 05/11/2005

Page 3 of 3