From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schenk v. Matos

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County
Jul 22, 2010
C.A. No. 09C-11-107-JRJ (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 22, 2010)

Opinion

C.A. No. 09C-11-107-JRJ.

Date Submitted: July 14, 2010.

Date Decided: July 22, 2010, Date Corrected: July 23, 2010.

Upon Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument — DENIED.

L. Vincent Ramunno, Esq., Ramunno Ramunno, P.A., Wilmington, DE.

Beth H. Christman, Esq., Casarino, Christman Shalk, Wilmington, DE.


Dear Counsel:

I have reviewed the record and the relevant case law regarding motions for reargument and motions to vacate default judgments. It is well established that default judgments are "viewed with disfavor" and trial on the merits "is considered superior." The Court has not misapprehended a material fact or rule of law. Although it is a close call based on the record presented, the Court determined that the defendant made a sufficient showing under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 55 to warrant setting aside the default. Consequently, Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument is

McDonald v. S J Hotel Enterprises, L.L.C., 2002 WL 1978933, at *2 (Del. Super. Aug. 27, 2002). See also Verizon Delaware, Inc. v. Baldwin Line Const. Co., 204 WL 838610, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr. 13, 2004).

See transcript of July 14, 2010 hearing on Motion for Reargument and transcript of June 23, 2010 hearing on Motion to Vacate Default Judgment.

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Schenk v. Matos

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County
Jul 22, 2010
C.A. No. 09C-11-107-JRJ (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 22, 2010)
Case details for

Schenk v. Matos

Case Details

Full title:Barbara Schenk v. Iris Matos

Court:Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Jul 22, 2010

Citations

C.A. No. 09C-11-107-JRJ (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 22, 2010)