Opinion
C.A. No. 06C-02-249 SCD.
Submitted: December 21, 2007.
Decided: January 2, 2008.
ORDER
This 2nd day of January 2008, upon consideration of MAA Real Estate, LLC's ("plaintiff") Motion for Reargument of the Court's Opinion filed December 7, 2007 and the defendant's response, it appears that:
1. On November 30, 2007 the evidence in this case was presented to the Court for decision, non-jury.
2. On December 7, 2007, my decision was filed and issued to the parties.
3. Plaintiff filed the current Motion for Reargument on December 17, 2007. The Motion argues facts, in the way of a summation, but does not clearly assert specific errors of law. Plaintiff makes various arguments regarding different factual conclusions that could have been reached from the evidence. Only one argument which relates to the calculation of damages requires comment.
4. Plaintiff's argument regarding damages is that the Court did not factor labor costs into the award of damages associated with the tile flooring. That is incorrect. The testimony of the plaintiff's expert, and the exhibit which reflects his costs assessments, make it clear that labor was included in the amount awarded.
5. The plaintiff's Motion was not timely filed. Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) requires that a Motion for Reargument "be served and filed within 5 days after the filing of the Court's opinion or decision."
Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e).
WHEREFORE, because the Motion for Reargument lacks merit, and because it was not timely filed, the Motion is DENIED .
IT IS SO ORDERED.