Department of Finance of Sussex County v. Clifford E. Polk Heirs et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Motion for Reconsideration (D.I. 7 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 1/9/2018. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE OF
SUSSEX COUNTY, a political
Subdivision of the State of Delaware,
Plaintiff,

v.
CLIFFORD E. POLK HEIRS, et al.,

: Civil Action No. 17-1448-RGA
: Superior Court of the State of
: Delaware in and for Sussex County
: Case No. S17T-07-004

Defendants,

v.
GEORGE K. TRAMMELL, Ill,
Proposed Intervenor.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington this

q

day of January, 2018, having considered Plaintiff's

motion for reconsideration (D. I. 7);
IT IS ORDERED that motion (D.I. 7) is DENIED, for the reasons that follow:
On December 1, 2017, the Court summarily remanded this matter to the Superior
Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County, for lack of standing.

(D.I. 5,

6). Plaintiff filed this pleading as a Rule 60 motion, a motion for reconsideration, and
he also seeks my recusal.
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).

1

"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 clear error of law or to prevent
manifest injustice.

Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010).

There are numerous provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.

Plaintiff does not indicate

under which section he proceeds. While the filing also refers to "a notice of appeal,"
the Court was advised that when Plaintiff brought the document in for filing, he stated
the filing was not a notice of appeal, but a motion for reconsideration or a Rule 60
motion.
It is clear that Plaintiff is unhappy that I remanded this matter to State Court.

His

displeasure, however, does not merit reconsideration of the remand order or my
recusal.

Nor has Plaintiff raised sufficient grounds for relief under Rule 60.

Because

the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any grounds to warrant a
reconsideration of the Court's remand order, relief under Rule 60, or my recusal, the
motion (D.I. 7) is DENIED.

2