Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

‘ ‘ Case 1 :04-cv-00419-JJF Document 79 Filed 05/21 /2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Cathy D. Brooks-McCollum CIVIL ACTION NO: 04-419 (JJF)
& On behalf of
Emerald Ridge Service Corporation Derivative Action JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
As a Director
PO Box l2l66
Wilmington, DE 19850 _ -7-%; }-- ¤i` .»~ ¥ - g l iQ···Z-a-.. ,
(302) 521-124] L, ‘
. i ‘‘`e ·
(PLAINTIFF) F , I, -
tDEFENDANTS) _e _ i
. . . 1
MOTION TO RULE ON IF THERE IS A VALID SETTLEMEN $5* in fig *' ii * ti 0 I Iii? &
PLAINTIFFS REGARDING THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT & IF SO THE TERMS PER THE
SETTLEMENT TO BE INCORPORATED INTO ANY SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT, & TO RULE UPON
INDEMNIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF & EMERALD RIDGE SERVICE CORPORATION ON PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THIS COURT PER THE STATE FARM POLICY & ALSO TO RULE UPON WHETHER OR NOT MR.
EDWARD KAFADER WAS ACTING COUNSEL FOR STATE FARM IN THESE PROCEEDINGS IN THAT ALL
SIDES HAVE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS TO THIS, WHICH WILL PREVENT MR. KAFADER
FROM ARGUING THAT HE IS EXCLUDED FROM BEING CALLED AS A WITNESS AGAINST STATE FARM
IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, IF HE WAS NOT HIRED TO REPRESENT DEFENDANTS, AS MR. CASARINO
HAS STATED.
On Thursday, May 10, 2007 the court held a Scheduling Conference regarding the proceedings before it against
Defendant State Farm Insurance Company, during said conference the court asked if Plaintiff would be willing to accept a
settlement in the amount of $30,000 to settle the proceedings against State Farm and other panics utilizing the State Farm
Policy. Plaintiff clearly stated to the court that she would only accept the terms_, in accordance to the language and the parties
mentioned into the settlement agreement letter originally sent by Mr. Kafader to Plaintiffs attention. The court asked that I
give it until Monday, May I4, 2007 to try having these issues resolved, and that only the basic terms be incorporated into any
settlement document. The court then advised Plaintiff on Friday, May 18, 2007 that Defendants were not willing to adhere to
the original settlement terms as Plaintiff agreed to in open court.
Mr. Kafader had a party from his oflice send correspondence once again to Plaintiff changing any terms originally
agreed upon, and thus adding additional terms never addressed in the original settlement agreement (which were greater then
nature then the terms he incorporated after the first settlement was reached, and where he stated via correspondence that the
letter represented the only terms of the settlement). Plaintiff is ofthe belief that there may be a valid Settlement in place
l

' Case 1 :04-cv-00419-JJF Document 79 Filed 05/21 /2007 Page 2 of 4
against State Farm, who are before this court, and asks that the court rule upon the Motion which was filed before this court
in December 2006, along with others, as to remove this unsolved matter so that Defendants cannot in the future based on the
outcome of any trial come back and argue that there was indeed a settlement and that there was a mis-cormnunication. Mr.
Casarino the person stating to be the acting counsel for State Farm also wrote correspondence to the court regarding the
December 2006 proposed settlement stating that he too believed there to be a valid settlement in place and asked that the
court rule upon the documents before it, as to have a valid court order once and for all resolving this issue. While Plaintiff is
aware that the only party before this court is State Farm, this court does have the authority to rule upon the issues against
Defendants State Farm.
Plaintiff first asks that the court rule if it too believes there was a meeting ofthe minds and there is a valid
Settlement in place for the record. Should the court rule that tl1ere is a valid Settlement in Place against Defendant State
Farm, Plaintiff then asks the court to rule upon indemnification, as to have all these issues tumed over to counsel. Based on
the indemnification ruling, Plaintiff then asks that the court allow Plaintiff to obtain counsel from the state of Pennsylvania to
handle these proceedings on her behalf] who is barred in the United States District Court Of Pennsylvania.
The other issues and motions before this court are the issues of discovery, Plaintiff has not been provided any
discovery she has requested from Defendants, the person who was operating as the Corporate Counsel, the bank, and other
parties and would like the court to rule upon defendants providing Plaintiff with the discovery in these proceedings.
Plaintiff then would like the court to rule upon the Summary Judgment Motion before it on those issues that can be
determined and settled by the court.
Plaintiff thanks the court for attempting to resolve these issues in Good Faith, and understands that the court can
only operate in the boundaries of the law, and hopes that the court will continue to operate admirable throughout these
proceedings, as not to prejudice Plaintiff and the members of the Corporation.
Should the court require that Plaintiff provide them whcrc on the Court Docket thc Motions in question are, please
advise'?
bmirted,
( gt . G) lgridbitrti Cr/it/Ch
Cathy D. rooks— cCollum
PO Box 1 I66
Wilmington, DE 19850
May 18, 2007
2

° ' Case 1 :04-cv-00419-JJF Document 79 Filed 05/21 /2007 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Cathy D. Brooks-McCollum CIVIL ACTION NO: 04-419 (JJF)
& On behalf of
Emerald Ridge Service Corporation Derivative Action JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
As a Director
115 Emerald Ridge Drive
Bear, DE 19701
(302) 832-2694
(PLAINTIFF)
vs.
State Farm Insurance Company
(DEFENDANTS)
PROOF OF SERVICE
l Cathy D. Brooks-McCollum hereby certify that on the IS"' day of May 2007, I will and have caused to be served a
true and correct copy of the foregoing two (2) Motions electronically upon defendants:
Casarino, Christman & Shalk
Stephen P. Casarino
800 North King St, Suite 200
P.O. Box 1276
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 594-4500
(302) 594-4509 Fax
(E15; ©rmlO.ttt(tt@za/M
/s/’ Cathy . Brooks-McCollum (Pro Se)
PO Box 12166
Wilmington, DE 19850
(302) 521-1241

Case1:04—cv-00419-JJF Document 79 Filed 05/21/2007 Page40f4
039
,3 ><
~/¤ ..
i4 Ci
ND 5
Qi?
TT E
., OQ-
Qi U5
O
§"‘¥
Gy
{in
522-:
8* v em qj<;
>Q¢©?
%f*;§ 0
$9 >< 0 +6-if I. -.
_g§__§©52 Q
mf · ¤a’·n"`5 -•
3,; {B QQ `. -
2 Dt M fi 1, °
Q v 0_· Q, ° ’. 0
Z xgm »¤ *0 *2* ’
‘? _;-I. u m n 3 ` l M
Q; _Q_`,{r A I I 1 1* .rJ
3* `0 aix i A

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF

Document 79

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF

Document 79

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF

Document 79

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF

Document 79

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 4 of 4