Judge Gilliam Rejects 'Open-Ended Placeholder' Theory, Orders Capital One/Discover Merger Case Closed

The underlying dispute centers on a challenge to Capital One’s impending acquisition of Discover, which plaintiffs initially filed in April 2025. After the court denied their first motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that was subsequently dismissed with leave to amend.

Instead of filing a new complaint, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and a separate motion to correct the record. Judge Gilliam denied both requests in an order filed April 24, 2026.

Regarding the motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 76), Judge Gilliam rejected plaintiffs' argument that the court overlooked or misstated material points of fact and law. The judge characterized plaintiffs' contention that identifying specific errors would defeat the purpose of seeking approval as an "unserious argument," noting that "[p]arties seeking leave to file motions for reconsideration regularly attach to their filing a substantive motion containing legal and factual arguments for the Court’s consideration."

The court emphasized that "[a] motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle for perpetually relitigating the Court’s rulings" and found plaintiffs failed to show any material difference in law or fact warranting reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9.

The second motion (Dkt. No. 83) sought to correct the record regarding a previously denied preliminary injunction against Capital One’s acquisition of Brex. Plaintiffs argued they could not have pled facts about the Brex deal because it was not contemplated until six months after their first amended complaint.

Judge Gilliam denied the request, stating there was nothing to correct because "the Court had no authority to issue an injunction based on claims not pled in the complaint." The judge noted that plaintiffs appear to believe, with no basis in law, "that this case is an open-ended placeholder for them to challenge any action by Capital One that they might disagree with," adding, "That belief is wrong."

The court directed plaintiffs to show cause by May 1, 2026, why "this case should not be closed and judgment entered in favor of Defendant" given their failure to file an amended complaint by the April 7, 2026 deadline. Alternatively, if plaintiffs decline to amend and seek entry of judgment so that they can appeal, "they should confirm as much."