US Bank National Association et al v. Gunn

Filing 152

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 124 MOTION to Interplead or in the Alternative Dismiss Action Under Rules 12(B)(7) and 19(A) and (B) for Failure to Join Parties, 128 MOTION to Strike Answer For Lack of Capacity, 143 MOTION for Reconsideration, and 144 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and for Explanation of the Court's Order. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/8/2013. (nms)

f

I
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as
Trustee for the Holders of the EQCC Home
Equity Loan Asset Backed Certificates,
Series 1998-3 and SELECT PORTFOLIO
SERVICING, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
Civ. No. 11-1155-RGA

v.

LA MARGUNN,
Defendant.

Francis G. X. Pileggi, Dorothy Davis, and Jill Kornhauser Agro, Esquires; Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for Plaintiffs.
La Mar Gunn, Dover, Delaware; prose defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

__8_,

April
2013
Wilmington, Delaware

t

Pending before the Court are Defendant's Motion to Interplead or, in the
alternative, Dismiss Action under Rules 12(b)(7) and 19(a) and (b) for Failure to Join
Parties (D. I. 124), Motion to Strike Answer of Francis G.X. Pileggi for Lack of Capacity
(D. I. 128), Motion to Reconsider Orders Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt, its
Order Demanding Pro Se Defendant be Sanctioned by Way of Attorney's Fees in the
Amount of $1 ,960 and Request for Oral Argument (D.I. 143), and Motion to Extend
Discovery Deadline and for Explanation of Order (D.I. 144), all opposed by Plaintiffs.
The background of this case is set forth in the March 16, 2012 Memorandum
Opinion and Order. (D. I. 38, 39.) Plaintiffs filed their Verified Complaint on November
21, 2011, and Defendant answered and raised counterclaims against Plaintiffs. (D.I. 1,
5.) On February 8, 2012, the Court entered a scheduling order (D. I. 24) that set forth a
February 22, 2012 deadline for the joinder of other parties and amendment of pleadings

(id. at 1J 2), a discovery deadline of April 8, 2012 (id. at 1J 3.a.), and a dispositive motion
deadline of July 8, 2012 (id. at 1J 7.). Gunn filed the Motion to Interplead or, in the
alternative, Dismiss Action under Rules 12(b)(7) and 19(a) and (b) for Failure to Join

I
I
j

Parties (D. I. 124) on October 11, 2012, well past the deadlines to do so. No
explanation was offered. Therefore, the Motion will be denied. Even if it were
considered on the merits, it is clearly insufficient. 1
On October 24, 2012, Gunn filed a Motion to Strike Answer of Francis G.X.
Pileggi for Lack of Capacity (D. I. 128). In reviewing the pleading, it states that it seeks
1

Some of the arguments in the motion have nothing to do with the caption of the
motion. The Court expresses no opinion on the unrelated arguments.

2

I
I

I
I

l

to strike an "answer" without specifying in any understandable way which "answer" it is
seeking to strike. The arguments in the motion would not support striking any

I

document, be it denominated an "answer'' or something else. Accordingly, the Motion
will be denied.
Gunn moves for reconsideration (D. I. 143) of two December 10, 2012 Orders.
One Order granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt (D.I. 138)
and the other Order awarded Plaintiffs attorney's fees as a result of discovery sanctions
imposed upon Gunn. (D.I. 139). Gunn requests oral argument.
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 ref. 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. 201 0).

f

I

The Court has reviewed the record, as well as the instant Motion to Reconsider
and Plaintiffs' opposition. There is no need for oral argument. Further, the Court finds

f
I.

that Gunn has failed to demonstrate any of the aforementioned grounds to warrant
reconsideration of the Court's December 10, 2012 Orders (D.I. 138, 139). Therefore,
the Court will deny the Motion. 2
On December 10, 2012, the Court ordered Gunn to provide complete answers to
Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and to supplement his response to Plaintiffs' Request for
2

The request that the Court certify the order for interlocutory appeal (D. I. 143 at
16) is denied.

3

Production of Documents by specifying which documents on a CD-ROM, if any, were
responsive to Plaintiffs' Requests. (See D.l. 141 ). Gunn was to provide the discovery
no later than December 21, 2012. On the date the discovery was due (i.e., December
21, 2012), Gunn filed a Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline and for Explanation of
Order (D.I. 144). Gunn asks the Court for a detailed explanation of what is necessary
for him to satisfy the discovery production. The Court, however, does not provide legal
advice. He is to respond to the discovery requests to the best of his ability and in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, Gunn seeks oral
argument. Oral argument, however, is not necessary for ruling on this motion.
Gunn explains that he experienced a catastrophic event at his home this past
Spring and that all his files were destroyed. He seeks to obtain copies of Plaintiffs'
discovery requests, copies of his responses, a copy of the CD-ROM, and asks for
additional time to respond to the December 10, 2012 Order. (D.I. 141). Gunn has
access to the Court's Case Management/ Electronic Case Files ("CM/ECF"). Therein,
he has to ability to obtain copies of Plaintiffs' discovery requests at Docket Item Number
31 and his responses thereto at Docket Item 58. With regard to the CD/ROM, Plaintiffs
indicate they would have provided Gunn a copy, had he made the request. Inasmuch
as Plaintiffs have the CD/ROM in their possession and would have provided a copy to
Gunn upon request, the Court will order them to provide Gunn a copy. Finally, the
Court will grant the motion to the extent that Gunn will be given a short extension to
respond to the discovery as outlined in this Court's December 10, 2012 Order. (D.I.
141 ).

4

l
r

For the above reasons, the Court will deny the Motion to Interplead or, in the
alternative, Dismiss Action under Rules 12(b)(7) and 19(a) and (b) for Failure to Join
Parties (D. I. 124) and Motion to Strike Answer of Francis G.X. Pileggi for Lack of
Capacity (D.I. 128). The Court will deny the Motion to Reconsider Orders Granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt, its Order Demanding Pro Se Defendant be Sanctioned
by Way of Attorney's Fees in the Amount of $1,960 and Request for Oral Argument
(D.I. 143). Finally, the Court will grant the Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline and for
Explanation of Order (D.I. 144) to the extent that Plaintiffs shall provide Gunn with a
copy of the CD/ROM and Gunn will be given a brief extension of time to respond to
discovery as set forth in the December 10, 2012 Order.
An appropriate order will be entered.

I
I

I

I
~-

5