Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv—00488-SLR Document 9 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ROBIN LYNN FOX, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. No. 06-488-SLR
MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A., §
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this Pfhday of December, 2006, having reviewed
the plaintiff’s letter dated September 22, 2006, construed as a
motion for reconsideration;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is denied, for the reasons
that follow:
I. Background. Plaintiff filed this Title VII employment
discrimination action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—5. The
complaint was dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to
pursue relief following exhaustion of administrative remedies.
(D.I. 6) As previously discussed by the court, plaintiff has not
yet received her right—to-sue letter from the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”}. Id;
2. Standard of Review. The standard for obtaining relief
under Rule 59(e) is difficult to meet. The purpose of a motion
for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact
or to present newly discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v.
Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (Bd Cir. 1985). A motion for

Case 1:06-cv—00488-SLR Document 9 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 2 of 3
reconsideration may be granted if the moving party shows: (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability
of new evidence that was not available when the court issued its
order; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or
to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros,
176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
3. A motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on
a request that a court rethink a decision already made. gg;
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): §§§ QLEQ D. Del. LR
7.1.5.
4. Discussion. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the
order dismissing her complaint. Her letter/motion to the court
indicates that the discrimination remains pending before the
EEOC. She asks the court to keep the case active since the “EEOC
..2 -

Case 1:06-cv-00488-SLR Document 9 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 3 of 3
will be in contact and sending letters soon." (D.I. 7)
Defendant opposes the motion, noting that plaintiff’s letter
confirms the correctness of the court’s previous ruling. (D.I.
8)
5. Conclusion. There was no intervening change in the
controlling law or new evidence that was not available when the
September 21, 2006 order was entered. Reconsideration is not
warranted. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration (D.I. 7)
is denied, and the case is closed.
UNITED STATQS DISTRICT JUDGE
- 3 -