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

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF Document 68 Filed O4/12/2006 Page1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CATHY D. BROOKS—MCCOLLUM, :
Plaintiff, ;
v. Z Civil Action No. 04-419 JJF
STATE FARM INS. CO., ;
Defendant. i
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court are five motions filed by
Plaintiff: Motion Court To Decide which Parties Have Authority
To Decide Settling Of Corporate Issues — Is It State Farm Are A
Party Ruled To Be Director (D.I. 59), Motion For Specific
Performance (D.I. 62), Motion To Renew Summary Judgment (D.I.
63), Motion To Pay Costs To Date (D.I. 65), and Motion To
Invalidate Chancery Courts Order & Rule In Accordance To The Law
On Indemnification Of All Parties (D.I. 67). Defendant has nct
filed a response to any of these Motions. For the reasons
discussed, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motions.
It is difficult to determine precisely what Plaintiff is
requesting in her first two Motions (D.I. 59 & 62). However, it
appears to the Court that Plaintiff is requesting that the Court
intervene in settlement negotiations between her and Defendant.
Because such intervention would not be appropriate, the Court
will deny the Motions.

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF Document 68 Filed O4/12/2006 Page 2 of 3
Plaintiff styles her third Motion (D.I. 63) as one for
summary judgment. However, she does not provide the Court with
any basis upon which it could grant summary judgment in her
favor. She does not argue that there are no genuine issues of
material fact or that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. gee Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In addition, because discovery
has not yet begun, it would be premature to grant summary
judgment at this time. Accordingly, the Court will deny the
Motion.
Plaintiff's fourth Motion (D.I. 65) requests that the Court
order Defendant to pay for legal costs Plaintiff has incurred to
date. It is unclear to the Court whether she seeks costs
incurred in connection with this case alone, or costs incurred in
other, related cases as well. In any case, the Court cannot
grant the Motion. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to
indemnification for any of her legal expenses is the central
issue of this case. In essence, Plaintiff seeks summary judgment
on that issue. For the reasons discussed above, the Court will
not grant summary judgment at this time. Therefore, the Court
will deny the Motion.
Plaintiff's last Motion (D.I. 67) requests the Court to
invalidate an Order of the Delaware Chancery Court. Plaintiff
does not specify which Order she requests be invalidated or even
2

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF Document 68 Filed O4/12/2006 Page 3 of 3
the case in which the Order was entered. At any rate, this Court
is without jurisdiction to review the decisions of a state court.
Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
I. Plaintiff’s Motion Court To Decide which Parties
Have Authority To Decide Settling Of Corporate Issues — Is It
State Farm Are A Party Ruled To Be Director (D.I. 59) is DENIED;
2. Plaintiff‘s Motion For Specific Performance (D.I.
62) is DENIED;
3. Plaintiff's Motion To Renew Summary Judgment (D.I.
63) is DENIED;
4. Plaintiff's Motion To Pay Costs To Date (D.I. 65)
is DENIED;
5. Plaintiff’s Motion To Invalidate Chancery Courts
Order & Rule In Accordance To The Law On Indemnification Of All
Parties (D.I. 67) is DENIED.
I __;n A
April NA, 2 006 <..*- A . ~= "€r=- A
DATE TATES DISTRI ' unos

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF

Document 68

Filed 04/12/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF

Document 68

Filed 04/12/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF

Document 68

Filed 04/12/2006

Page 3 of 3