Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00030-GMS

Document 26

Filed 04/24/2008

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ____________________________________ ) In re: CHARLES ZANDFORD ) ) ____________________________________) C.A. No. 07-30

ORDER WHEREAS, on January 16, 2007, Charles Zanford ("Zanford") filed this pro se bankruptcy appeal; WHEREAS, on January 19, 2007, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal (D.I. 5); WHEREAS, on September 24, 2007, the court issued an Order (D.I. 22) granting the SEC's motion and dismissing the appeal; WHEREAS, on October 4, 2007, Zanford filed a Motion for Reconsideration (D.I. 24), asking the court to reconsider its September 24, 2007 Order; WHEREAS, a motion for reconsideration should be granted only "sparingly;"1 WHEREAS, in this district, motions for reconsideration are granted only if it appears that the court has patently misunderstood a party, has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning, but of apprehension;2 and

Tristrata Tech. Inc. v. ICN Pharms., Inc., 313 F. Supp. 2d 405, 407 (D. Del. 2004); Karr v. Castle, 768 F. Supp. 1087, 1090 (D. Del. 1991). See, e.g., Shering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 293, 295 (D. Del. 1998); Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990) (citing Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bonhannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99 (E.D. Va. 1983)); see also Karr, 768 F. Supp. at 1090 (citing same).
2

1

Case 1:07-cv-00030-GMS

Document 26

Filed 04/24/2008

Page 2 of 2

WHEREAS, the court concludes that none of the three above-cited conditions exist in the present case; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Zandford's Motion for Reconsideration (D.I. 24) is DENIED.

Dated: April 24, 2008

/s/ Gregory M. Sleet CHIEF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2