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

Case 1:04-cv-00349-JJF Document 32 Filed 05/06/2005 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CAROLINE P. AYERS—FOUNTAIN, :
Plaintiff, Q
4 v. ; Civil Action No. 04-349 JJF
EASTERN SAVINGS BANK, E
Defendant. E
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On March 31, 2005, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion g
(D.I. 24) and Order (D.I. 25) granting Defendant’s Motion To {
Dismiss (D.I. 6) concluding that P1aintiff’s claims were barred 2
by the doctrine of res judicata. On April 14, 2005, Plaintiff
filed a Motion For Reconsideration, In The Alternative, Motion To
Alter And/Or Amend The March 31, 2005 Order Dismissing Case (D.I.
26). Defendants oppose the Motion (D.I. 28).
A motion for reconsideration under Delaware Local Rule 7.1.5
which is timely filed and challenges the correctness of a
previously entered ordered is considered the "functional
equivalent" of a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). In re DaimlerChrysler AG
Securities Litigation, 200 F. Supp. 2d 439, 441 (D. Del. 2002)
(citations omitted). The purpose of a motion for reconsideration
filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) is "to correct manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Mggls
Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
Motions for reargument or reconsideration should be granted

Case 1:04-cv-00349-JJF Document 32 Filed 05/06/2005 Page 2 of 2
sparingly and may not be used to rehash arguments which have
already been briefed by the parties and considered and decided by
the Court. Karr v. Castle, 768 F.Supp. 1087, 1090 (D. Del. 1991);
Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F.Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del.
1990). Thus, a court may only alter or amend its judgment if it
is presented with: (1) a change in the controlling law; (2) newly
available evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of
law or fact to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood, 176
F.3d at 677.
After considering Plaintiff's arguments in support of the
instant motion, the Court concludes that reconsideration is not
warranted. Plaintiff's motion does not cite a change in
controlling law or newly available evidence. Plaintiff’s papers
assert arguments that have already been briefed by the parties
and considered and decided by the Court. For this reason, the
Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion (D.I. 26).
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this £;_ day of May
2005, that P1aintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration, In The
Alternative, Motion To Alter And/Or Amend The March 31, 2005
Order Dismissing Case (D.I. 26) is DENIED.
§?§g飧 Q %
U I ED S AT DISTRICT DG

Case 1:04-cv-00349-JJF

Document 32

Filed 05/06/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00349-JJF

Document 32

Filed 05/06/2005

Page 2 of 2