Kabbaj v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 114

MEMORANDUM re MOTION for Reconsideration (D.I. #107 ), Motion for Extension of Time (D.I. #110 ), and Motion Concerning Notice of Appeal (D.I. #111 ). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/16/2014. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
YOUNES KABBAJ,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civ. No. 13-1522-RGA

GOOGLE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Younes Kabbaj filed this action asserting jurisdiction by reason of
diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and raising claims under Delaware law. (D.I. 2,
23). He appears prose and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (D.I. 5),
but he paid the filing fee on October 2, 2013. On April 7, 2014, the Court granted
Defendants' motions to dismiss, denied Plaintiff's motions for leave to amend, denied
the remaining motions, and closed the case. (See D.I. 87, 98). Presently before the
Court are Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, motion for an extension of time to file an
appeal, and a motion regarding the appeal. (D.I. 107, 110, 111).
The Court first addresses the motion for reconsideration. (D.I. 107). 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 rel. 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) (citing N.
River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995).

I

I

I

{

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any of the aforementioned
grounds to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's April 7, 2014 memorandum opinion
and order (D.I. 97, 98) that granted the motions to dismiss and closed the case.
Therefore, the Court will deny the motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal (D.I.
110) and a motion concerning the notice of appeal (D.I. 111). On May 6, 2014, Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal of the April 7, 2014 memorandum opinion and order. The notice
of appeal was timely filed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). Therefore, the Court will dismiss
as moot the motions regarding the appeal. (D. I. 110, 111 ).
Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show cause why he should not
be ordered to return to the Court any "signed in blank" District of Delaware subpoenas
in his possession. Plaintiff did not respond to a show cause order entered by the Court
on April 17, 2014, that required him to show cause on or before May 8, 2014. (See D.I.
101).
For the above reasons, the Court will: (1) deny Plaintiffs motion for
reconsideration (D. I. 107); (2) dismiss as moot Plaintiffs motions regarding appeal (D. I.
110, 111 ); and (3) find that Plaintiff has failed to show cause why he should not be
ordered to return any "signed in blank" District of Delaware subpoenas in his
possession. An appropriate order will be entered.

*'fs·~GE

MayJIL, 2014
Wilmington, Delaware

I

i

l

1
f

2

f

f

t

I

I