Opinion
C.A. No. K15C-03-003 RBY
03-10-2016
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Plaintiff, v. EARL STRONG , Defendant.
Daniel Conway, Esquire, Atlantic Law Group LLC, Georgetown, Delaware for Plaintiff. Earl Strong, Pro se.
Upon Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Reargument Pursuant to Rule 59(e)
Denied
OPINION
Daniel Conway, Esquire, Atlantic Law Group LLC, Georgetown, Delaware for Plaintiff. Earl Strong, Pro se. Young, J.
SUMMARY
Defendant Earl Strong ("Defendant") requests that this Court grant reargument on Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank NA's ("Plaintiff") motion for summaryjudgment. This Court previously granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in an Order dated February 26, 2016 (the "Order"). Defendant claims that the Court did not consider all grounds asserted in his pleadings prior to the Order. Because Defendant's motion presents nothing new to be addressed, no basis for reargument exists. Therefore, the motion is DENIED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Super Court Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) governs motions for reargument. Pursuant to Rule 59(e), reargument 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 is not an opportunity for a party to rehash arguments already decided by the Court or to present new arguments not previously raised. In order for the motion to be granted, the movant must "demonstrate newly discovered evidence, a change in the law, or manifest injustice."
Kennedy v. Invacare, Inc., 2006 WL 488590, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 31, 2006).
Id.; Hennegan v. Cardiology Consultants, P.A., 2008 WL 4152678, at *1 (Del. Super. Sept. 9, 2009) (citing Denison v. Redefer, 2006 WL 1679580, at *2 (Del. Super. Mar. 31, 2006)).
Brenner v. Village Green, Inc., 2000 WL 972649, at *1 (Del. Super. May 23, 2000) (citing E.I. duPont de Nemours Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 711 A.2d 45, 55 (Del. Super. 1995)). --------
DISCUSSION
Here, Defendant has neither presented new evidence, introduced new arguments for the Court's consideration nor demonstrated manifest injustice. The Court considered Defendant's arguments from his earlier pleadings and issued decisions on them through the Order granting summary judgment to Plaintiff. Defendant fails to advance any argument as to how the Court overlooked a controlling legal principle or misapprehended the law or the facts in such a way that would have changed the outcome of the February 26 Order. Defendant merely rehashes the same arguments he has made throughout the lengthy procedural history of this case. Thus, Defendant has failed to provide the Court with any reason as to why his motion for reargument should be granted.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Robert B. Young
J. RBY/dsc
Via File & ServeXpress & U.S. Mail
oc: Prothonotary
cc: Counsel
Earl Strong
File