Opinion
C.A. No. 06A-04-013 (CLS).
Submitted: May 11, 2007.
Decided: August 22, 2007.
Upon Consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument, DENIED.
Miroslaw E. Kostyshyn, Pro Se, Wilmington, Delaware, Plaintiff.
Max B. Walton, Esquire, Connolly, Bove, Lodge Hutz, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant.
ORDER
1. Plaintiff Miroslaw E. Kostyshyn ("Plaintiff") has filed a Motion for Reargument in regard to the Court's November 30, 2006 Opinion. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion, it is, hereby, DENIED.
2. On November 30, 2006, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Commissioners of the Town of Bellefonte ("Defendant Commissioners"). Plaintiff Kostyshyn subsequently filed a Motion to Alter or Amend this judgment on February 9, 2007. The Court took Plaintiff's arguments into consideration and denied his Motion to Alter or Amend on April 27, 2007. Now, in the current Motion for Reargument, Plaintiff raises the same argument as to 29 Del. C. § 10004 that the Court previously considered in the April 27, 2007 decision. In addition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants' original Motion to Dismiss, regarding the November 30, 2006 matter, exceeded the four page limit pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 78(b).
The Court's April 27, 2007 Opinion held that, "Defendant Commissioners did not violate Plaintiff's rights because they properly voted on Ordinance 2006-01 at the March 28, 2006 meeting in accordance with 29 Del. C. § 10004." ( Kostyshyn v. Comm'rs of Town of Bellefonte, 2007 WL 1241875, at * 1 (Del.Super.)).
3. "A motion for reargument is the proper device for seeking reconsideration by the Trial Court of its findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment. . . . The manifest purpose of all Rule 59 motions is to afford the Trial Court an opportunity to correct errors prior to appeal. . . ." A Motion for Reargument will be denied unless 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.
Cummings v. Jimmy's Grille, Inc., 2000 WL 1211167, at *2 (Del.Super.) (quoting Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del. 1969)).
Id. (citing Interim Health Care v. Fournier, 1994 Del. Ch. LEXIS 43).
After reviewing the motion and response, the Court is convinced that Kostyshyn has not shown that the Court has overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles, or has misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome. Kostyshyn has reiterated substantially all of his previous arguments regarding 29 Del. C. § 10004. Therefore, consistent with the principle that a Motion for Reargument should not be used merely to "rehash the arguments already decided by the court," the Court is not persuaded that Kostyshyn's Motion has any merit.
Cunningham v. Horvath, 2004 WL 2191035, at *2 (Del.Super.).
4. Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiff well exceeded the time limit set forth in Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) for filing a Motion for Reargument. Rule 59(e) states that, "A motion for reargument shall be served and filed within 5 days after the filing of the Court's opinion or decision." Here, the Court issued a decision in the underlying matter on November 30, 2006, and Plaintiff filed the current Motion for Reargument on May 4, 2007. As such, the Court finds that it need not consider Plaintiff's additional argument concerning the page limit.
Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e).
5. Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Kostyshyn's Motion for Reargument is, hereby, DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.