Opinion
C.A. No. N10C-07-260 JAP.
Decided: October 10, 2011.
Jury Trial Demanded. Upon Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument Motion. DENIED .
Neil J. Levitsky, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware Attorney for Plaintiff Aquila of Delaware, Inc.
Seth J. Reidenberg, Esquire, Wilmington Delaware Attorney for Defendant Wilmington Trust Company.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Aquila of Delaware, Inc.'s motion for reargument or to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rules 59(d) and (e), alleging that the Court had previously ruled on the issue at the hearing prior to issuing its differing written opinion determining that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. Defendant Wilmington Trust Company responds by arguing that the Court's previous comments at oral argument are to no avail where the issue of subject matter jurisdiction arises. Wilmington Trust Company is correct.
Factual and Procedural Background
Motion for Reargument Standard
Aquila of Delaware, Inc. v. Wilmington Trust Company who decides
2011 WL 1487060, *2, Parkins, J. (Del. Super. Apr. 19, 2011).
Aquila of Delaware, Inc., 2011 WL 1487060 at *2 (citing James Jackson, LLC v. Willie Gary, LLC, 906 A.2d 76, 79 (Del. 2006)).
See Julian v. Julian, 2009 WL 2937121, *5, Parsons, V.C. (Del. Ch. Sept. 9, 2009).
Aquila of Delaware, Inc., 2011 WL 1487060 at *2.
Beatty v. Smedley, 2003 WL 23353491, *2, Slights, J. (Del. Super. Mar. 12, 2003).
Beatty, 2003 WL 23353491 at *2.
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(h)(3); Janowski v. Division of State Police Dept. of Safety and Homeland Sec., 2009 WL 537051, *2, Young, J. (Del. Super. 2009).
Ford v. Pep Boys, 1989 WL 16987, *1, Babiarz, J. (Del. Super. Feb. 21, 1989).
Carder v. Carl M. Freeman Communities, LLC, 2009 WL 106510, *3, Parsons, V.C. (Del. Ch. Jan. 5, 2009).
Here, subsequent to oral argument, the Court came to the conclusion that the claims, including the issues of whether the claims are arbitrable and who decides such arbitrability, were properly committed to arbitration. Since the parties agreed to have the arbitrator determine whether the Court or the arbitrator has subject matter jurisdiction over any claims, the Court cannot presume such jurisdiction here. Any discussion by this Court of the scope of the agreement or the arbitrability of claims, therefore, is premature.
As a result, since the Court has not overlooked any controlling precedent or legal principles and has not misapprehended the law or facts such that its decision would be different, the parties must await the arbitrator's determination as to jurisdiction.
Accordingly, Aquila's motion for reargument or to alter or amend judgment is DENIED .
IT IS SO ORDERED.