Opinion
C.A. No. S14C-02-036 RFS
08-12-2014
RE: Maureen Jordan and Nina Jordan, a minor, by and through Maureen Jordan, Guardian Ad Litem and Next Friend v. Indian River School District and Lisa A. McVey
Craig A. Karsnitz, Esquire Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP 110 West Pine Street P.O. Box 594 Georgetown, Delaware 19947 Brian L. Kasprzak, Esquire Marc Sposato, Esquire Marks, O'Neil, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelley, P.C. 300 Delaware Avenue, #900 Wilmington, Delaware 19801
RICHARD F. STOKES JUDGE Craig A. Karsnitz, Esquire
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
110 West Pine Street
P.O. Box 594
Georgetown, Delaware 19947
Brian L. Kasprzak, Esquire
Marc Sposato, Esquire
Marks, O'Neil, O'Brien, Doherty &
Kelley, P.C.
300 Delaware Avenue, #900
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Upon Defendants' Motion for Reargument. DENIED Dear Counsel:
The Defendants' Motion for Reargument pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) is DENIED. Neither the law nor the facts have been misunderstood; the reargument is simply re-litigating a previously rejected argument that is not appropriate at this juncture.
Cases of this type presented here are fact intensive. Negligence with a ministerial act or gross negligence with a discretionary act may give rise to responsibility. The Complaint is sufficient for the litigation to proceed normally. Once a fully developed record is made, the subject may be revisited, if indicated, through summary judgment.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Richard F. Stokes
Richard F. Stokes pc: Prothonotary
Wilmington Trust Co. v. Nix, 2002 WL 356371 at *3 (Del. Super. Feb. 21, 2002) ("A motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash arguments already decided by the Court.").