Opinion
C. A. No.: 05C-08-236 CLS.
Date Submitted: June 13, 2007.
Date Decided: September 24, 2007.
Upon Consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument DENIED.
Christopher J. Curtin, Esquire, Erisman Curtin, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiffs.
Robert T. Aulgur, Jr. and Kristi J. Doughty, Esquires, Whittington Auglur, Odessa, Delaware; Polly N. Phillipi, Esquire, Kantrowitz Phillippi, LLC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiffs Trisha G. Lamourine and Robert D. Lamourine ("Plaintiffs Lamourines") have filed a Motion for Reargument in regard to the Court's May 29, 2007 Opinion. Upon consideration of the motion and response, Plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On May 29, 2007, the Court issued a decision denying Plaintiffs of prejudgment interest in a Lemon Law action. The Court found that prejudgment interest is not an unqualified right in Delaware. In addition, the Court found that prejudgment interest accrues from the date a plaintiff effectively revokes a defective car to defendant dealers. The Court, therefore, held that applying these findings to the underlying matter left Plaintiffs Lamourines without a remedy.On June 4, 2007, Plaintiffs subsequently filed the current Motion for Reargument. Plaintiffs are essentially seeking reargument pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59 premised on the belief that revocation of acceptance occurred before the date of repurchase.
DISCUSSION
"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 Plaintiffs have 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. Plaintiffs have reiterated substantially all of their previous arguments in regard to revocation of acceptance. 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 Plaintiffs' motion has any merit. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument is DENIED.
Cunningham v. Horvath, 2004 WL 2191035, at *2 (Del.Super.).
IT IS SO ORDERED.