Coppedge et al v. Conway et al
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 7/17/15. (klc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF [)ELAWARE
JAMES COPPEDGE, et al.,
) Civ. Action No. 14-1477-GMS
DANIEL T. CONWAY, et al.,
The plaintiffs James Coppedge ("J.
Coppedge"~ and Krisha Johnson Coppedge ("K.
Coppedge) (together "the plaintiffs") filed this action
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 ofDelJware. (D.I. 1.) On January 12, 2015, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion to stay/injunction ajd dismissed the complaint for want of
subject matter jurisdiction. (See D .I. 6, 7.) On J
l 4, 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 and it was henied on February 5, 2015. (D.I. 10, 16,
17.) J. Coppedge recently filed a petition to access prohess of service in future filing due to
error. (D.I. 35.) While not clear, it appears to be a seclnd motion for reconsideration
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is
tb "correct manifest errors of law or fact
or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafjod Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). "A prop1r 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, 591F.3d666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing N River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA
Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)).
motion for reconsideration is not
properly grounded on a request that a court rethink a dJcision already made. See Glendo,n
Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109,11122 (E.D. Pa. 1993). Motions for
reargument or reconsideration may not be used "as a
J~ans to argue new facts or issues that
inexcusably were not presented to the court in the mattL 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 misunderstobd 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.
J. Coppedge states that the "Clerk of Court mistakenly allowed me to file Form 440's 1 in
this matter by signing off on it, unless it was my fault. Copies are on file. However, had I
known or understood that it was not Okay, I would havle instead moved for the case to be
reopened at that time before causing myself the additional expense. Motion to approve the
service, if appropriate." (D.I. 35.) The relief J. Coppedge seeks is not available to him. The
case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and as barrld by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.
Given that jurisdiction may be raised by the court at
an~ time, the issue of service of process is
not relevant to dismissal of the case. Moreover, there il no basis for the court to reopen the case.
The court has reviewed the pleadings and evidence of rlcord and finds reconsideration is not
A form 440 is AO 440 Summons in a Civil Action that contains a proof of service of summons.
appropriate. In addition, the court finds that J. Coppedge has failed to demonstrate any grounds
for reconsideration. Accordingly, the court will deny the motion for reconsideration.
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?