Opinion
C.A. No. 01C-08-216 RRC.
Submitted: February 2, 2006.
Decided: March 28, 2006.
Upon Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff HealthTrio, Inc.'s Motion for Reargument. DENIED.
P. Clarkson Collins, Jr., Esquire, Morris, James, Hitchens Williams LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant.
William R. Denny, Esquire, James M. Kron, Esquire, Jeffrey B. Safran, Esquire, Potter, Anderson Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
Dear Counsel:
The facts and procedural history of this case are set forth in this Court's Memorandum Opinion of June 22, 2005.
Immedient Corp. v. HealthTrio, Inc., 2005 WL 1953027 (Del.Super.).
After a nonjury trial, a motion for reargument is the proper vehicle for seeking reconsideration by the trial court of its findings of fact or conclusions of law or the judgment itself. A motion for reargument, however, should be denied unless the moving party can show that "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." "Motions for reargument are also denied when they are merely a rehash of arguments already made."
Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del.Super.Ct. 1969) (holding that the "manifest purpose" of a motion for reargument is to allow the trial court an opportunity to correct errors before appeal).
Bd. of Managers of Del. Crim. Justice Info. Sys. v. Gannett Co., 2003 WL 1579170, *1 (Del.Super.).
Crowhorn v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2001 WL 789649, *1 (Del.Super.) (citing St. Catherine of Sienna Catholic Church v. Hart Construction Co., 2000 WL 33301940, *2 (Del.Super.)).
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff HealthTrio, Inc ("HealthTrio") argues that this Court erred in finding "(1) that the contract between the parties did not include the October Technical Documents; and (2) that [Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant] Immedient [("Immedient")] fulfilled its obligations under the contract." As to the first ground, HealthTrio asserts that
HealthTrio's Mot. for Rearg., 1.
[t]he Court's interpretation that the contract include[d] two pre-existing Statements-of-Work, but exclude[d] the preexisting October Technical Documents does not give effect to the parties' intentions, creat[ed] an extraordinary, harsh, unjust, and inequitable result, and most significantly, result[ed] in an ambiguous contract because it d[id] not define the parties' obligations.
Id. at ¶ 2 (citations omitted).
This, argues HealthTrio, is against "California statutory law." As to the second ground, HealthTrio contends that "[t]he Court . . . err[ed] when it [found] that the contract only required Immedient to put forth its `best efforts.'" Nonetheless, argues HealthTrio, "[n]othing in the record, or the Court's opinion, supports a finding that Immedient's actions met this heightened standard [of `best efforts.']" Finally, HealthTrio also alleges that the Court erred "when it fail[ed] to consider the uncontested expert testimony as to the poor quality of Immedient's work even though it [held] that Immedient had an obligation to perform with care, skill, reasonable expediency and faithfulness."
Id.
Id. at ¶ 5 (citation omitted).
Id.
Id. at ¶ 9 (citation omitted).
Immedient responds that "HealthTrio has not cited any precedent the Court failed to consider that affects the well-reasoned and thorough memorandum opinion authored by the Court." Specifically, Immedient argues that the Court correctly applied "controlling California statutory law with respect to contract interpretation, the burden of proof at trial, and the contested nature of expert testimony." Further, Immedient claims that HealthTrio did not "cite any facts in the record indicating that the Court misunderstood or ignored facts that would have changed the outcome of the Curt's decision." Immedient asserts that "[t]he Court considered all of the facts concerning the October Technical Documents and the [Time and Material Statements of Work] and ruled appropriately under the law."
Immedient's Opp., 1.
Id. at 3.
Id. at 1.
Id. at 2.
This Court finds that in rendering the Memorandum Opinion of June 25, 2005, this Court did not overlook any appropriate precedents or legal principles nor did the Court misapprehend the law or the facts such as would affect the outcome of the decision.
For all of the above reasons, HealthTrio's Motion for Reargument is DENIED.