Opinion
Civil Action No. 06C-06-033 WCC.
Submitted: February 16, 2007.
Decided: April 5, 2007.
On Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument — DENIED.
On Plaintiff's Motion for Recovery of Attorney's Fees — GRANTED IN PART.
G. Kevin Fasic, Esquire, Wilmington, DE.
Mark D. Sisk, Esquire, Wilmington, DE.
Dear Counsel:
The Court presently has before it two motions filed by the Plaintiff resulting from the evidentiary hearing held by the Court in the above-captioned matter. The first is a Motion for Reargument of the damage award entered by the Court on January 3, 2007, and as a result of that award, a request for attorney's fees and costs. The Court will deny the request for reargument but will award reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated with this litigation.
The Court first finds that the assertions made by the Plaintiff regarding the motion for reargument is simply a restatement of the various assertions the Plaintiff made during the evidentiary hearing. The Court is familiar with the arguments the Plaintiff has raised and has not misapprehended the facts, overlooked controlling law or legal precedent nor legal arguments made by counsel. The Court appreciates that the Plaintiff is perhaps not completely satisfied with the Court's ruling, in spite of the fact that it awarded nearly 60% of the amount that was originally being claimed. However, the Court believes the decision was extremely fair, was made in full consideration of the unique facts surrounding this case, including the conduct of the Plaintiff and his agent, and was an appropriate resolution of this messy and unfortunate dispute. As such, the Plaintiff's request for reargument is denied.
Kovach v. Brandywine Innkeepers Ltd. P'ship, 2001 WL 1198944 (Del.Super.Ct.) (citing Hessler v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del. 1969)) (A motion for reargument will be denied unless the proponent can establish that the Court either overlooked legal precedent or principles, or that the Court misapprehended the facts or law and that misapprehension altered the outcome of the case.) See also, Beatty v. Smedley, 2003 WL 23353491 (Del.Super.Ct.); Gass v. Traux, 2002 WL 1426837 (Del.Super.Ct.).
The Court also finds that the evidentiary hearing that expanded over three days is one that should have never reached that stage of litigation. This is evidenced by Plaintiff's motion requesting attorney's fees that are more than 43% of the total amount of damages that were initially requested in this case. Clearly if reasonable decisions and common sense had been utilized early on in this litigation by both sides, this case would never have been tried. However, the Court does believe that the Plaintiff is appropriately characterized as the "prevailing party" and as such is entitled to recover a reasonable, and the Court emphasizes reasonable, fee associated with this litigation. After carefully reviewing the submissions made by counsel concerning the effort he has undertaken in this matter, the Court will award attorneys fees of $9,450.00. This fee represents three days of hearings of approximately 7 hours a day and an additional 21 hours of preparation and miscellaneous time associated with this litigation. As such, a total of 42 hours at $225 an hour, the going rate for counsel, equates to the $9,450.00. The Court will also allow recovery of expenses of $1,217.21 which represents the total cost generated since the matter was transferred to Superior Court. This results in a total amount of $10,667.21.
The Court notes that when compared to the damages actually awarded by the Court, this percentage increases to over 75%.
IT IS SO ORDERED.