Judge Leonard P. Stark denied Leroy A. Garrett a set of motions aimed at requesting reconsideration, expedited review, a pre-hearing conference, investigation, increased transparency, and a temporary stay of the CITGO auction.
The order was issued on July 31, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware concerning the case between Crystallex International Corp. and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
The judge’s decision addresses and denies several motions submitted by Garrett, who is representing himself (pro se) and acting on behalf of former PDVSA workers. In the judge’s view, Garrett failed to present valid arguments for reconsideration and should submit a merit-based motion to participate in the case.
Basis for Denial
The essence of the judicial resolution is the denial of all requests from Leroy A. Garrett based on the lawyer’s inability to demonstrate a valid legal ground for reconsideration and his lack of recognized party status in the litigation.
The decision states that Garrett’s motions for reconsideration and expedited review were denied because he could not “demonstrate any adequate basis to justify the reconsideration and certainly not on an expedited basis.” The court emphasizes that these motions seek to revisit issues already resolved.
Garrett claimed “violation of due process and equal protection; ‘flagrant’ misrepresentation and ‘prejudicial’ conduct by the Parties of Venezuela; the alleged failure of the Court to consider jurisprudence and critical evidence he previously submitted; and ‘clear error and manifest injustices’.” (D.I. 1861 at 2-3)
According to the judge, the only proper basis for reconsideration invoked by Garrett is a “clear error of law or fact.” However, the court rules that the request “has not identified such a clear error and, instead, merely reiterates the same arguments that the court has already considered and rejected.”
Denial of Request for Attorney Appointment
Moreover, Judge Stark interprets Garrett’s motion for reconsideration as a potential request for attorney appointment.
The court denies this by stating that Garrett “does not address in any way the factors that courts within the Third Circuit must consider to evaluate such a request.” It cites jurisprudence that provides a non-exhaustive list of factors for assessing pro bono attorney requests in civil cases.
Denial of Other Motions
Other motions filed by Leroy A. Garrett, including requests for a pre-hearing conference, investigation, improved transparency, and a temporary stay, were also denied by Leonard Stark.
The court reiterated its previous position that Garrett “must file a timely and meritorious motion to intervene in this action.”
Additionally, the order clearly states that “Unless and until he does so, the Court cannot grant him any relief in this action.”