Opinion
C.A. No. N16L-07-076 JRJ
02-06-2018
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Indentured Trustee for the Registered Holders of Saxon Asset Securities Trust 2006-1 Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Notes, Series 2006-1, PIaintiff(s), v. Dozmitt Francis and Denilla A. Francis, Defendants.
cc: Melanie J. Thompson, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff Dozmitt Francis, pro se Defendant Denilla A. Francis, pro se Defendant
Upon Defendants' "Appeal to Order": DENIED ORDER
AND NOW TO WIT, this 6th day of February, 2018, the Court having duly considered Dozmitt Francis and Denilla Francis' (collectively the "Defendants") pro se "Appeal to Order," which constitutes a Motion for Reargument pursuant to Rule 59(e) (the "Motion"); and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas' ("Deutsche") response thereto, IT APPEARS THAT: 1. By letter dated August 21, 2017, the Defendants were noticed to "a hearing scheduled for September 15, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. for Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment." The Defendants did not appear at that hearing. 2. At the September 15, 2017 hearing, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Deutsche and entered Judgment against the Defendants in the amount of $262,258.41. 3. Defendants argue that they are entitled to reargument because:
Def.s' Appeal to Order (D.I. 32) (Trans. ID 61128346).
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e).
Pl.'s Letter in Response to Def.s' Appeal to Order (D.I. 33) (Trans. ID 61132205).
Letter Confirming Date and Time of Hearing (D.I. 27) (Trans. ID 61011578).
Judicial Action Form (D.I. 28) (Trans. ID 61121665).
Order Granting Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. dated September 15, 2017 (D.I. 29) (Trans. ID 61121665).
Defendant made special appearance due to construction on roads. Defendant parked on 13th Street and walked to Court. Defendant has pending Federal Court case filed with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.4. Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e), a motion for reargument will be granted only if "the Court has overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles, or the Court has misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision." A motion for reargument is not an opportunity for a party to rehash the arguments already decided by the Court or to present new arguments not previously raised. "A party seeking to have the Court reconsider the earlier ruling must demonstrate newly discovered evidence, a change in the law, or manifest injustice." Delaware law places a heavy burden on a party seeking relief pursuant to Rule 59. 5. The Court finds that the Defendants have failed to establish that the Court has overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles, or that the Court has misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision.
Def.s' Appeal to Order (D.I. 32) (Trans. ID 61128346).
Board of Managers of the Delaware Criminal Justice Information System v. Gannet Co., 2003 WL 1579170, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 17, 2003).
McElroy v. Shell Petroleum. Inc., 1992 WL 397468, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 24, 1992).
Brenner v. Vill. Green, Inc., 2000 WL 972649, at *1 (Del. Super. May 23, 2000) aff'd, 763 A.2d 90 (Del. 2000).
Newborn v. Christiana Psychiatric Services, P.A., 2017 WL 394096, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 25, 2017) (citing Kostyshyn v. Comm'rs of Bellefonte, 2007 WL 1241875, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr. 27, 2007)). --------
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' September 18, 2017 Motion for Reargument is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
Jan R. Jurden, President Judge Original to Prothonotary cc: Melanie J. Thompson, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff
Dozmitt Francis, pro se Defendant
Denilla A. Francis, pro se Defendant