By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in M. Denise Tolliver v. Highmark BCBSD, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-797-RGA (D.Del. May 13, 2019), the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s previous order denying remand to state court. In denying the motion, the Court explained that “[t]he purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to ‘correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. 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 prevent manifest injustice. A motion for reconsideration is not an appropriate vehicle to reargue issues that the court has already considered and decided.’” Id. at *1 (internal citations omitted).

Plaintiff’s motion did not allege any intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence as to timeliness or waiver of removal, or a clear error of law in the Court’s previous decision denying the remand. Id. at *1-2. Instead, Plaintiff’s motion focused on the state court’s dismissal of her state law claims which were irrelevant to the merits of removal to federal court. Id. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion failed to meet the standard for reconsideration of the remand order. Id.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.