Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mumma v. Bobali Corp.

July 29, 2009

ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, PLAINTIFF
v.
BOBALI CORPORATION; KIM COMPANY; AND PENNSYLVANIA SUPPLY COMPANY, DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sylvia H. Rambo United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM

Before the court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's March 18, 2009 order.*fn1 (Doc. 55). The parties have briefed the issues, and the matter is ripe for disposition.

I. Background

A. Facts

On October 28, 2008, Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory relief and a motion for an expedited hearing. In his complaint, Plaintiff sought to inspect the books and records maintained by Defendants. Plaintiff claims entitlement to the books and records as a director/shareholder of these corporations pursuant to sections 1508 and 1521 of the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law, 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 1508 & 1521. A hearing was held on March 9, 2009.

On March 18, 2009, the court issued a memorandum and order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's request for relief. Specifically, the court denied Plaintiff's request to inspect and copy the records related to the Pennsylvania Supply Company and the Bobali Corporation, but granted Plaintiff's request to inspect the and copy a limited number of documents and records relating to the Kim Company.*fn2 (Doc. 49). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration only of Paragraph 1 of the court's March 18, 2009 order denying him access to the corporate records of the Pennsylvania Supply Company.*fn3

In its March 18, 2009 memorandum, the court abbreviated the name of Pennsylvania Supply to "Pennsy Supply." (Doc. 49 at 1.) The court then found the following:

At the March 9, 2009 hearing, Plaintiff testified that he is a director and/or shareholder of the three corporations involved in this suit and is therefore entitled to the various records of these corporations. Defendants argue that as to Pennsy Supply and Kim Company, these corporations were liquidated. Two tenancy in common agreements were created known as MR I and MR II. MR I would govern properties formerly owned by Kim Company. MR II would control properties formerly held by Pennsy Supply. (Defs.' Ex. 1.) These agreements were deemed validly executed on December 19, 1986. (Id. at Conclusions of Law.) In a later adjudication in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, No. 99-2765 Equity Term, in an opinion and decree by the Honorable Wesley Oler dated May 17, 2002 (Defs.' Ex. 6), the court held that Pennsy Supply ceased to exist as the name of a corporation recognized in the records of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (Id. at Findings of Fact No. 2, p. 3.) In the Decree NISI of that case, the court decreed "that Plaintiff [Mumma II] does not retain an ownership interest in a corporation known as Pennsy Supply Inc. or any derivation thereof. . . ." (Id. at p. 11.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's request to examine the records of Pennsy Supply or any of its successors will be denied. (Doc. 49 at 5.)

Plaintiff asserts that the court misapprehended the identities of the parties in this case with those before Judge Oler in 99-2765 Equity Term. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the court conflated "Pennsy Supply" with the Pennsylvania Supply Company when those two companies are separate and distinct, and that in so doing the court committed a clear error of fact warranting reconsideration of its denial of Plaintiff's access to Pennsylvania Supply Company documents.

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration on March 30, 2009. (Doc. 55.) Contrary to the Local Rules, Plaintiff did not file a brief in support of his motion for reconsideration at the same time that his motion was filed, although he sought permission to file the brief nunc pro tunc, and the court granted his request by order dated June 12, 2009. (Doc. 69). Defendants filed their brief in opposition on June 29, 2009. (Doc. 71.) Plaintiff filed his reply on July 9, 2009. (Doc. 72.) This motion is now ripe for disposition.

II. Legal Standard: Motion for Reconsideration

A motion for reconsideration is governed by Federal Rule 59(e), which allows a party to move to alter or amend a judgment ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.