Shahin v. Delaware Federal Credit Union
MEMORANDUM ORDER re 66 MOTION for Reargument filed by Nina Shahin is DENIED. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 5/15/14. (ntl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
C.A. No. 10-475-LPS
DELAWARE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
At Wilmington this 15th day of May, 2014:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiffs Motion for Reargument (D.I. 66) is DENIED.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.5, a motion for reconsideration, including a motion
brought pursuant to Rule 59( e) to alter or amend judgment, should be granted only "sparingly."
See generally MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 2013 WL 4764037, at *2 (D. Del. Sept. 5,
2013) ("A motion for reargument under Local Rule 7.1.5 is the functional equivalent of a motion
to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The standard for
obtaining relief under Rule 59(e) is difficult to meet.") (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). The decision to grant such a motion lies squarely within the discretion of the district
court. See Dentsply Int'!, Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 42 F. Supp. 2d 385, 419 (D. Del. 1999);
Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1241 (D. Del. 1990). These types of motions
are granted only if the court has patently misunderstood a party, made a decision outside the
adversarial issues presented by the parties, or made an error not of reasoning but of
apprehension. See Schering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 293, 295 (D. Del. 1998);
Brambles, 735 F. Supp. at 1241. "A motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a
request that a court rethink a decision already made." Smith v. Meyers, 2009 WL 5195928, at *1
(D. Del. Dec. 30, 2009); see also Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp.
1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993). It is not an opportunity to "accomplish repetition of arguments that
were or should have been presented to the court previously." Karr v. Castle, 768 F. Supp. 1087,
1093 (D. Del. 1991 ). A party may seek reconsideration only if it can show at least one of the
following: (i) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) the availability of new
evidence not available when the court made its decision; or (iii) there is a need to correct a clear
error of law or fact to prevent manifest injustice. See Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. LouAnn, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). In no instance should reconsideration be granted if
it would not result in amendment of an order. See Schering Corp., 25 F. Supp. 2d at 295.
Plaintiff has failed to show that the requirements for reargument are met here.
(See D.I. 68) Among other things, Plaintiff has not shown that reargument could lead to an
amendment of the Court's prior order, given that Defendant's offer of judgment was for the
UNITED STATES DIST
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?