Opinion
C.A. No. 01C-01-054 WCC.
April 29, 2002.
On Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument. Denied.
William J. Cattie, III, Esquire, Cattie and Fruehauf, Wilmington, DE.
Cathy L. Reese, Esquire, Andrea J. Faraone, Esquire, Rome, Comisky and McCauley, Wilmington, DE.
Dear Counsel:
The plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the Court to hear reargument under Rule 59(e) of the Superior Court Civil Rules of its decision of November 1, 2001. To obtain reargument, plaintiff must demonstrate that the Court either overlooked precedent or controlling legal principals or misapprehended the law or facts such as would affect the outcome of the decision. After reviewing the arguments made by the plaintiff and the defendant's response, the Court finds the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the required showing and the motion is denied.
Kovach v. Brandywine Innkeepers L.P., Del. Super., C.A. No. 98C-01-232, 2001 WL 1198944 at *1, Babiarz, J. (Oct. 1, 2001) (Ex. A).
In doing so, the Court recognizes the difficult position it places the plaintiff in defending a claim which is reasonably viewed to have questionable merit. The Court has questioned counsel regarding the motives behind the related litigation and has encouraged them to perform their professional responsibility to act as "counsel" to their clients not simply to be their mouthpieces. I further explored this area at a status conference last week and unfortunately, to this point, it appears that the underlying motives of the parties in the related litigation have transcended any common sense to resolve the litigation.
Since it does not appear the litigation will go away, my suggestion to all counsel is that you stop expending energy on motion practice and simply let the jury make a decision. The Court is not convinced that its earlier decision in this litigation is wrong or was the result of a misunderstanding of a legal precedent or a misappreciation of the facts of the litigation. The arguments made by the plaintiff in its motion are simply an attempt to repackage those that have been previously decided by this Court in a different format. As such, the Motion is denied.