Mikkilineni v. PayPal, Inc.


SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PAUL R. WALLACE NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE JUDGE 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 10400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 (302) 255-0660 Date Submitted: July 7, 2021 Date Decided: July 12, 2021 Mr. Maheswar Mikkilineni 64 Welsh Tract Road, #203 Newark, DE 19713 RE: Mikkilineni v. PayPal, Inc., et al. C.A. No. N19C-05-123 PRW CCLD Dear Mr. Mikkilineni: The Court is in receipt of your filing of July 7, 2021, which you caption a “Motion for enlargement of time under Rule 6(b) to submit a Request for reconsideration of the partial-Order on July 1, 2021.” (D.I. 116). You request this extension due to the length of the Court’s July 1st order and your status as a self- represented plaintiff. Id. As Superior Court Civil Rule 6(b)’s terms expressly state, the Court “may not extend the time for taking any action under Rule[] . . . 59(b), (d) and (e) . . . except to the extent and under the conditions stated in them.” Civil Rule 59(e) governs a motion for reargument,1 and there is no exceptive provision to that rule’s time 1 The label attached by a litigant—“motion for reconsideration” or “motion for reargument”—is neither here nor there, any such application is governed by this Court’s Civil Rule 59(e). See Patterson-Woods & Assoc., LLC v. Independence Mall, Inc., 2019 WL 6329069, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 26, 2019) (“A motion for reconsideration or reargument is governed by Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e).”); see also State v. Brown, 2019 WL 2429402, at *1 n.11 (Del. Super. Ct. July 18, 2019) (where movant styled his request a “letter memorandum requesting . . . reconsideration” of the Court’s prior order, the Court observed that “no matter the label, [Movant]’s is a motion for reargument under this Court’s rules” and controlled by Civil Rule 59(e)). Mikkilineni v. PayPal, Inc., et al. C.A. No. N19C-05-123 PRW CCLD July 12, 2021 Page 2 of 2 deadline stated therein. Indeed, under long-settled Delaware law, this Court has no authority to extend the time in which to move for reargument.2 And this Court would have no jurisdiction to consider the substance of any untimely motion for reargument.3 Consequently, Mr. Mikkilineni, your motion made under Superior Court Civil Rule 6(b) must be DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Paul R. Wallace, Judge Original to Prothonotary cc: All Counsel via File and Serve 2 See Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 701 n.1 (Del. 1969) (Under Civil Rule 6(b), this Court “has divested itself of the power to enlarge the time for a motion for reargument.”). 3 Lewis v. Coupe, 2016 WL 6081825, at *1 (Del. Oct. 17, 2016) (concluding that this Court “would have lacked jurisdiction to consider” the substance of an untimely motion for reargument) (citing Boyer v. State, 2007 WL 452300, at *1 (Del. 13, 2007) and Preform Building Components, Inc. v. Edwards, 280 A.2d 697, 698 (Del. 1971)); Gunn v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 2013 WL 1859349, at *1 (Del. Super. …

Original document

Add comment


Recent Posts

Recent Comments