Johnson v. US Bancorp

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM ORDER - denying re 31 MOTION to Vacate 24 Order, MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend 2 Complaint - filed by Cinseree Johnson ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 7/16/12. (rwc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE CINSEREE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 1O-1072-LPS USBANCORP, Defendant. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington this I ~ ~ay of July, 2012: Having considered Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Vacate and Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Amend the Complaint (D.1. 31), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration on May 18, 2012. (See D.1. 29) Not content with the Court's ruling, she renews the Motion. (D.1. 31) 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 Cafe ex reI. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). "A proper Rule 59(e) motion ... must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citingN. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995). 1 2. Similar to her first Motion for Reconsideration, the Renewed Motion to Vacate (D.I. 31) is without merit. The Motion is denied. Future motions for reconsideration to vacate the March 30, 2012 Order will be docketed, but not considered. 3. The Court's May 18,2012 Order granted Plaintiffs motion for leave to file an amended complaint and gave her fourteen days from the date of the Order to do so. (D.I. 26, 29) The May 18, 2012 Order warned Plaintiff that, "if an Amended Complaint is not filed within the time allowed, then the case will be CLOSED .... There will be no further extensions." (D.I. 29 at ~~ 6,8) 4. The court docket indicates that the Order was mailed to Plaintiff on May 18,2012, yet she claims she did not receive it until June 6, 2012. Therefore, she moves for an extension of time to file an amended complaint indicating that the Court "must allow" seven to ten days for delivery of regular U.S. mail. The Court finds specious Plaintiffs claim that it took nineteen days for the Order, mailed from Wilmington, Delaware on May 18,2012, to arrive in Cleveland, Ohio, on June 6, 2012. Notably, the instant motion filed by Plaintiff is postmarked June 11, 2012, and was received and docketed here on June 14,2012; a mere three days.1 5. Plaintiff has been afforded ample opportunity to file an amended complaint. Instead, she has flouted court deadlines, filed pleadings without merit, and neglected her litigation responsibilities. Plaintiff was warned that her failure to timely comply with the May 18, 2012 Order in filing an Amended Complaint would result in closure of the case, yet she failed ICuriously, while the envelope is post-marked June 11,2012, Plaintiffs Certificate of Service is dated June 12,2012. 2 to heed the Coures warning. The Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Amend the Complaint (D.I. 31) is DENIED. 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. e UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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?