United States District Court, D. Delaware
Honorable Maryellen Noreika United States District Judge.
Bernard Katz, (“Katz”), who appears pro se,
commenced this action on February 6, 2018, against Defendants
Willie Feldman (“Feldman”), individually, and
Salem Botanicals, Inc. (“Salem Botanicals”)
alleging fraud during an arbitration proceeding and asking
the Court to set aside an arbitration award. (D.I. 1).
Feldman filed an Amended Counterclaim for judgment and lien
against Katz and Telesonic Corp. (D.I. 7). On January 18,
2018, the Court denied without prejudice Katz's Amended
Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award (D.I. 5), dismissed
without prejudice the Third Amended Complaint (D.I. 9), and
dismissed without prejudice Feldman's Amended
Counterclaim (D.I. 7). Katz has filed a Letter/Motion for
Reconsideration with exhibits, and Feldman has filed a Motion
to Confirm Arbitration Award as Judgment. (D.I. 19, 20, 21).
The Court turns first to the Letter/Motion for
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to “correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.” Max's Seafood Café ex rel.
Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.
1999). “A proper Rule 59(e) motion . . . must rely on
one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3)
the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591
F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing N. River Ins. Co. v.
CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.
moves for reconsideration on the grounds that Telesonic
Packaging Corp. is a sole proprietorship and not a
corporation and, therefore, he is an appropriate party in
this matter and has standing to appear pro se on its behalf.
This action was dismissed without prejudice on January 18,
2019, based upon the Court's lack of jurisdiction. Katz
does not mention this Court's lack of jurisdiction.
Instead he dwells on the lack of standing that the Court
found was an alternative reason for dismissal.
Botanicals, Inc., claimant in the underlying arbitration
matter, was never served. Nor was Telesonic Packaging Corp.,
respondent in the underlying matter, ever named as a
Plaintiff in this action. While Katz points the Court to a
State case that allowed him to proceed pro se on behalf of
Telesonic Packaging Corp., the Court notes that the named
defendant in the State case was Bernard Katz, sole proprietor
d/b/a Telesonic Packaging Corp. (See D.I. 20-1 at 1). Here,
the only Plaintiff is Bernard Katz, pro se; not Bernard Katz,
d/b/a Telesonic Packaging Corp. For purposes of jurisdiction,
it matters not that Katz does business as Telesonic Packaging
Corp. Telesonic Packaging was never a named Plaintiff. In
addition, while Feldman filed a
“counterclaim” against Telesonic Packaging Corp., the
record reflects that Telesonic Packaging Corp. was not
properly served and never answered the counterclaim.
Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. As a result,
Katz's motion fail on the merits because he has not set
forth any intervening changes in controlling law, new
evidence, or clear errors of law or fact made by the Court to
warrant granting reconsideration with regard to the issue of
jurisdiction. See Max's Seafood Café, 176
F.3d at 677. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration will
MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBIRTRATION AWARD AS JUDGMENT
asks the Court to confirm the underlying arbitration award
and enter judgment. (D.I. 21). The motion will be denied. As
noted in the Courts January 18, 2019, Feldman is not an
attorney and may not represent the interests of Salem
Botanicals, Inc. Salem Botanicals, Inc. must be represented
by counsel. Moreover, Salem Botanicals, Inc. has never been
served, and the Court does not have jurisdiction over it.
above reasons, the Court will: (1) deny Katz'
Letter/Motion for Reconsideration (D.I. 19) and (2) deny
Feldman's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award (D.I. 21).
The case remains closed.
appropriate order ...