Stefanie D. Mason v. State of Delaware (J.P. Court), et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied Stefanie D. Mason's motion to reopen a previously dismissed action, motion for reimbursement of PACER fees, and motion for e-filing rights and to amend the complaint. The court held that the alleged misrepresentations did not warrant relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), that PACER fees were not subject to reimbursement on the facts presented, and that the motion to amend was moot because the case was not reopened. The order was entered on April 2, 2026.

Holdings

1. The motion to reopen was properly denied because Plaintiff failed to show that the alleged misrepresentations were attributable to an adverse party in the case or that they would have made a difference in advancing her claims.
2. The motion for reimbursement of PACER fees was denied because Plaintiff's lack of familiarity with PACER did not establish entitlement to an exemption or reimbursement.
3. The motion for e-filing rights and leave to amend was denied as moot because the motion to reopen was denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to reopen the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) based on alleged misrepresentations by Allen Guizzetti.
2. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement of fees incurred accessing case documents through PACER.
3. Whether Plaintiff's motion for e-filing rights and leave to amend should be granted after the motion to reopen was denied.

Disposition

other