Coppedge et al v. Conway et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 2/5/15. (mas, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
JAMES COPPEDGE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.

DANIEL T. CONWAY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 14-1477-GMS
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
The plaintiffs James Coppedge ("J. Coppedge") and Krisha Johnson Coppedge ("K.
Coppedge) (together "the plaintiffs") filed this action as a "Notice of Appeal" from a final order
of the Supreme Court of Delaware to the Controller of Currency, U.S. Treasury Department, the
Justice Department, and the U.S. District Court of Delaware. (D.I. 1.) On January 12, 2015, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion to stay/injunction and dismissed the complaint for want of
subject matter jurisdiction. (See D.I. 6, 7.) On January 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. (D .I. 9.) On January 23, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reargument, construed
by the court as a motion for reconsideration. (D.1. 10.)
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)). A motion for reconsideration is not

1

properly grounded on a request that a court rethink a decision already made. See Glendon
Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993). Motions for
reargument or reconsideration may not be used "as a means to argue new facts or issues that
inexcusably were not presented to the court in the matter previously decided." Brambles USA,
Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990). Reargument, however, may be
appropriate where "the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside
the adversarial issues presented to the court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning
but of apprehension." Brambles USA, 735 F. Supp. at 1241 (D. Del. 1990) (citations omitted);
See also D. Del. LR 7.1.5.
The plaintiffs move for reconsideration on the grounds that the court failed to consider
the evidence of debt discharge. In addition, the plaintiffs contend that the law has been broken
and that opposing counsel and registered agents have all helped to put fraud upon the court. The
plaintiffs asked that their petition be affirmed with prejudice. The relief the plaintiffs seek is not
available to them. The court has reviewed the pleadings and evidence of record and finds
reconsideration is not appropriate. In addition, the court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate any grounds for reconsideration. Accordingly, the court will deny the motion for
reconsideration.

hb

5

,2015
Wilmington, Delaware

2