Opinion
C.A. No. N11C-09-068-RRC C.A. No. N11C-09-069-RRC C.A. No. N11C-09-070-RRC C.A. No. N11C-09-071-RRC C.A. No. N11C-09-072-RRC
10-12-2012
L&R Saunders Assoc. d/b/a Radiology Professionals v. Bank of America Notaries of America, Inc. v. Bank of America L&R Saunders Prof'l Enter. Groups, Inc. d/b/a Nurse Practitioners of America v. Bank of America L&R Saunders Prof'l Enter. Group, Inc. d/b/a Massage Therapists of America v. Bank of America National Chiropractic Research Corp. v. Bank of America
Matthew M. Carucci, Esquire Catherine M. Di Lorenzo, Esquire Carucci Di Lorenzo, LLC Attorney for Plaintiffs Brian M. Rostocki, Esquire John C. Cordrey, Esquire Reed Smith LLP Attorneys for Defendant Bank of America
RICHARD R. COOCH
RESIDENT JUDGE
Matthew M. Carucci, Esquire
Catherine M. Di Lorenzo, Esquire
Carucci Di Lorenzo, LLC
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Brian M. Rostocki, Esquire
John C. Cordrey, Esquire
Reed Smith LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Bank of
America
Upon Consideration of Defendant Bank of America's Motion for Reargument.
DENIED.
Dear Counsel:
Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e), Defendant moves for reargument on the Court's September 27, 2012 decision denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
Defendant argues that the Court "misapprehended or misapplied the law . . . in holding that the Court could not determine, based on the present record, when the alleged breach occurred to compute the statute of limitations." Separately, Defendant asserts that the Court misapplied the legal standard in determining whether Plaintiff's fraudulent inducement claim should be dismissed.
Def's M. for Reargument at ¶2.
Id. at ¶8.
Motions for reargument should be denied where the parties attempt to use reargument to review arguments already decided by the trial court. Superior Court Rule 59(e) is not intended to rehash arguments that the Court fully considered in its initial decision. The Court has previously decided Defendant's motion to dismiss after fully considering the argument in its previous decision. Therefore, Defendant's Motion for Reargument is DENIED.
Cunningham v. Horvath, 2004 WL 2191035, at *1 (Del. Super. July 30, 2004).
Kennedy v. Invacare Corp, 2006 WL 488590, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 31, 2006).
--------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Separately, I propose the date and time of Tuesday, October, 23 at 10:00 A.M. for a teleconference (which I ask Plaintiffs to originate) to discuss a Trial Scheduling Order.
_________________
Richard R. Cooch, R.J.
cc: Prothonotary