Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00911-GMS

Document 179

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JAN KOPACZ and JAN KOPACZ, Administrator of the Estate of Cathy Kopacz Plaintiffs, v. DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY, and CRAIG SWETT, Defendants. ____________________________________ JAN KOPACZ, Plaintiff, v. DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY, Defendant. : : : : : : : : : : :

C.A. No. 04-911 GMS Jury Trial Demanded

: : : : : : : : : :

C.A. No. 04-1281 GMS

DEFENDANT SWETT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND A JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO F. R. CIV. P. 59(e) AND FOR REARGUMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1.5 Defendant, Craig Swett, hereby moves this Honorable Court for entry of an order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend a Judgment Pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and for Reargument Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.5 as to Defendant Swett and, in support thereof, submits the following: 1. The Court entered an order and memorandum opinion on July 5, 2006 (D.I.

175) addressing all of the parties pending post-trial motions. Specifically, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant DRBA's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion

Case 1:04-cv-00911-GMS

Document 179

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 2 of 3

for new trial, amended the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs' for the amount of $28,839.00, and denied all other pending motions. 2. As a result of the Court's Order, Plaintiffs' have filed a Motion to Amend

Judgment Pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and for Reargument Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.5 (D.I. 177), a Supporting Brief (D.I. 178), and a Fourth Supplemental Petition for Allowance of Counsel Fees and Expenses (D.I. 176). There were, however, no grounds for reargument raised against Defendant Swett in any of the Plaintiffs' motion or memorandum brief. 3. In addition, the undersigned counsel has conferred with Plaintiffs' counsel,

Bernard A. Van Ogtrop, Esq., who confirmed that the present motion is not directed at Defendant Swett. 4. Since no ground for reargument was raised in the Plaintiffs' motion and

there has been confirmation that Plaintiffs' motion and brief does not pertain to Defendant Swett, Defendant Swett takes no position with respect to the present motion so long as any decision regarding reargument or amendment of the judgment be assessed only against the co-defendant DRBA. In addition, Defendant Swett respectfully request that the judgment

Case 1:04-cv-00911-GMS

Document 179

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 3 of 3

in favor of Defendant Swett and the Court' s memorandum opinion and order dated July 5, 2006 (D.I. 175) to the extent consistent with that judgment be upheld. Respectfully submitted, CASARINO, CHRISTMAN & SHALK, P.A. /s/ Donald M. Ransom DONALD M. RANSOM, ESQUIRE Del. I.D. No. 2626 800 N. King Street, Suite 200 P.O. Box 1276 Wilmington, Delaware 19899 (302) 594-4500 Attorney for Defendant Craig Swett

DATED: July 14, 2006