Summary
noting that a letter mailed directly to the Court by a pro se defendant but not received by the Court until after the filing deadline could not be construed as a timely filed motion for reargument
Summary of this case from Yatcho v. Nanticoke Memorial Hosp.Opinion
C.A. No. 00C-07-025 FSS
Submitted: December 10, 2002,
Decided: December 17, 2002.
Upon Consideration of Defendants' Motion for Reargument — DENIED.
ORDER
From Defendants' letter of December 10, 2002, it appears:
(1) On December 10, 2002, the court received a letter from the Thielemanns, pro se, who say they "feel compelled to bring to [the court's] attention a couple of issues in the [the November 27, 2002, order], which are in direct conflict with the established Record in this case." This letter is outside the scope of the court's rules, but will be treated as a motion for reargument under Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e).
Super.Ct.Civ.R. 59(e) states in relevant part:
A motion for reargument shall be served and filed within 5 days after the filing of the Court's opinion or decision. The motion shall briefly and distinctly state the grounds therefor. Within 5 days after service of such motion, the opposing party may serve and file a brief answer to each ground asserted in the motion. The Court will determine from the motion and answer whether rearmament will be granted. . . . Id.
(2) The order was issued on November 27, 2002. The Thielemanns had until Friday, December 6, 2002, to file a motion for reargument. The letter was mailed directly to the court and is late. Therefore, it is procedurally barred and reargument is DENIED.
(3) The court recognizes the difficulty presented to pro se litigants in grasping both the law and procedural rules. As a courtesy to the Thielemanns, therefore, the court will address briefly, the issues raised in the their letter.
(4) First, this court's decision to classify the Thielemanns' motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, which they protest, was meant to benefit the Thielemanns. That is, a motion for summary judgment allowed the court to address the merits of the Thielemanns' excuse for failing to make payments on the Stand-By Credit account. The Thielemanns' motion to dismiss argued about facts and "various [un-referenced] Delaware contract laws." As such it added nothing to this litigation and would have otherwise been completely discounted.
(5) Second, $10,084.15 was mentioned in order to provide context. It may be true that the specific amount cited did not reflect November's $390.00 payment. The court's point stands nonetheless. The Thielemanns had to pay something on the acknowledged balance. When the bank submits the judgment order called for by the November 27, 2002 order, it must get the math right.
(6) Third, interest charges and attorney's fees attributable to the Thielemanns' failure to pay on the Stand-By Credit account for the previous three years are one of the court-ordered mediation's subjects.
(7) Finally, the Thielemanns are reminded again of the procedural requirements for filing papers with this court. If you want the court to issue an order, you must file a motion as called for by Superior Court Civil Rule 7(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.