Chang v. Children's Advocacy Center of Delaware

Filing 67

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 6/18/2018. (mdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND
STATE OF DELAWARE, EX REL.
WEIH CHANG,
Plaintiff,
v.

CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER
OF DELAWARE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C. A. No. 15-442 (GMS)

MEMORANDUM
On June 1, 2015, Plaintiff, United States of America and State of Delaware, ex rel. Weih
Chang ("Relator") filed this qui tam action pursuant to the Federal False Claims Act ("FCA"),
31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., and the Delaware False Claims and Reporting Act ("DFCA"), 6 Del. C.
§ 1201 et seq., against Children's Advocacy Center of Delaware ("CAC"). (D.I. 2.) 1 On April 9,
2018, the United States of America filed a motion to dismiss based upon 31 U.S. C. §
3730(c)(2)(A), and the State of Delaware filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 6 Del. C. §
1204(b) (D.I. 46, 49). On April 23, 2018, Relator's counsel ("Counsel") filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel (D.I. 51) that was denied. On May 14, 2018, the court granted the motions
to dismiss (D.I. 56, 57). Relator then filed multiple motions prose, including a request for the
court to reconsider its dismissal, require Counsel to continue their legal representation of Relator,
and grant leave to file a second amended complaint andjoinder of Edward Scot Husbands (D.I.

1

On March 3, 2016, the United States declined to intervene in the civil action, but plaintiff was permitted to
continue the civil case in the name of the United States pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730. (D.I. 10 at 1.) The State of
Delaware subsequently declined to intervene on April 21, 2016. (Id)

58, 59, 60, 62). Counsel renewed their motion to withdraw on June 12, 2018 (D.I. 63), and CAC
moved to strike the prose motions (D.I. 65).
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
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 court has once again reviewed the filings in this matter and finds that the plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate any grounds for reconsideration. Therefore, the court will deny the motion
for reconsideration (D.I. 58). In addition, the court will grant in part and deny in part the motion
to strike (D.I. 65). Relator was represented by counsel at the time of the June 4, 2018 filings

2

(D.I. 59, 60, 61, 62), and the motions will be stricken. Finally, the court will grant the renewed
motion to withdraw (D.I. 63).

Dated: June

I{_, 2018

3