Opinion
C. A. N23A-08-003 JRJ
02-08-2024
ALLEN SNIPE AND MARIA SNIPE, Appellants, v. BOULDEN SERVICES, LLC, Appellee.
Allen Snipe and Maria Snipe, pro se Victoria K. Petrone, Esq.
Date Submitted: January 31, 2024
Allen Snipe and Maria Snipe, pro se
Victoria K. Petrone, Esq.
ORDER
Jan R. Jurden Jan R. Jurden, President Judge
Upon consideration of Appellants' letter motion for "Clarification of the timing, and filing of the Appeal" ("Motion for Reargument"), Appellee's Response thereto ("Response"), and the record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT:
Appellants' Mot. for Reargument, Trans. ID 71854923 (Jan. 23, 2024). The Court construes Appellants' letter as a Motion for Reargument pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e).
Appellee's Resp. to Appellants' Mot. for Reargument, Trans. ID 71916285 (Jan. 31, 2024).
(1) On January 3, 2024, the Court granted Appellee's motion to dismiss Appellants' appeal from the Court of Common Pleas because it was untimely.
See Order, Trans. ID 71732409 (Jan. 3, 2024). Appellants had until July 28, 2023, to file their appeal of the Court of Common Pleas decision. Id. at 3 n.16; see 10 Del. C. § 1326(b) ("The appeal shall be taken within 30 days of the final order, ruling, decision or judgment."). Appellants' appeal was docketed on August 14, 2023. Order at 3.
(2) On January 12, 2024, Appellants filed the instant Motion for Reargument, arguing their "appeal was filed within the courts time frame."
Appellants' Mot. for Reargument.
(3) In response, Appellee argues that Appellants' Motion for Reargument is untimely and without merit.
Appellee's Resp. to Appellants' Mot. for Reargument.
(4) A motion for reargument is governed by Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e). Pursuant to Rule 59(e), the motion will be granted "only if 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." A motion for reargument "shall be served and filed within 5 days after the filing of the Court's opinion or decision."
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e).
State v. Brinkley, 132 A.3d 839, 842 (Del. Super. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Kennedy v. Invacare, Inc., 2006 WL 488590, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 31, 2006)).
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e).
(5) The Court's Order dismissing the appeal was filed on January 3, 2024.Appellants did not file their Motion for Reargument until January 12, 2024, seven business days after the Court filed the Order. As a result, the Motion for Reargument is untimely.
Order.
Appellants' Mot. for Reargument.
See McDaniel v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 860 A.2d 321, 323 (Del. 2004) (holding "[t]he reargument period cannot be enlarged.").
(6) Even, assuming arguendo, the Motion for Reargument was timely filed, Appellants' Motion for Reargument fails. Appellants do not argue that the Court's January 3, 2024 Order dismissing the appeal was based on a material misapplication of law or a misapprehension of the facts. Instead, Appellants focus on events that occurred after the 30-day appeal window had closed. As noted in the Order, "[the] Court lacks jurisdiction to decide a direct appeal that is untimely and jurisdictional defects cannot be waived."
Appellants' Mot. for Reargument. Appellants assert they filed their appeal on August 9, 2023, but that is too late. The 30-day window closed on July 28, 2023. See Order at 3 n.16.
Malawi v. PHI Service Company, 2012 WL 6945506, at *2 (Del. Super. Oct. 12, 2012).
NOW, THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Appellants' Motion for Reargument must be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.