Title: Thompson v. Fernbach

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES THOMPSON, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
JEFFREY FERNBACH and 
FERNMOOR HOMES, INC. a/k/a 
FERNMOOR HOMES AT 
WOODLANDS PEPPER CREEK, 
DE LLC, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§   
§    No. 219, 2022 
§ 
§    Court Below—Superior Court 
§    of the State of Delaware 
§   
§    C.A. No. S20C-08-025 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  October 14, 2022 
Decided:  December 21, 2022 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears to 
the Court that:   
(1) 
On June 27, 2022, the plaintiff below-appellant, James Thompson, filed 
this appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated June 7, 2022, denying his motion 
for reconsideration of the Superior Court’s order, dated April 1, 2022, granting the 
motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants below-appellees, Jeffrey 
Fernbach and Fernmoor Homes, Inc. a/k/a Fernmoor Homes at Woodlands Pepper 
 
2 
Creek, DE LLC (collectively, “Employer”).  For the reasons set forth below, we 
affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
On August 18, 2020, Thompson filed a complaint against Employer for 
violating 19 Del. C. § 2365.  Section 2365 provides that it is unlawful for an 
employer to discharge, retaliate, or discriminate against an employee based on the 
employee seeking workers’ compensation benefits.  Thompson alleged that 
Employer had engaged in retaliation by terminating him as a model home host 
shortly after he sought workers’ compensation benefits for a workplace injury he 
suffered in October 2016.  On January 12, 2017, Employer notified Thompson that 
January 20, 2017 would be his last day due to declining activity at the model home.  
Employer advised that it would reach out if Thompson was needed in the spring and 
hoped to have him back then.   
(3) 
Employer did not contact Thompson about returning.   In a letter dated 
November 19, 2018, Thompson’s counsel demanded that Employer pay Thompson 
a year-and-a-half of salary.  In a letter dated December 15, 2018, Employer’s counsel 
stated that Thompson was terminated in January 2017 for lack of business.   
(4) 
After the Superior Court denied Thompson’s motion for default 
judgment on  November 6, 2020 and Employer’s motion to dismiss on December 
18, 2020, the parties engaged in discovery.  On September 30, 2021, Employer filed 
a motion for summary judgment.  Employer argued, among other things, that the 
 
3 
two-year statute of limitations under Section 2365 began to run on January 20, 2017, 
Thompson’s last day of employment, and had expired by the time Thompson filed 
his complaint on August 18, 2020.  Thompson argued that the two-year statute of 
limitations did not begin to run until December 15, 2018 when he learned for the 
first time that he had been terminated in January 2017, not temporarily laid off. 
(5) 
On April 1, 2022, the Superior Court issued a decision granting the 
motion for summary judgment.  The Superior Court held that Thompson’s action 
was barred by the two-year statute of limitations and that there was no causal 
connection between Thompson’s filing for workers’ compensation and termination.  
(6) 
On May 17, 2022, Thompson filed a motion for reconsideration.  He 
asserted, among other things, that he did not receive a hard copy of the April 1, 2022 
decision until April 21, 2022.  Employer opposed the motion as untimely.  On June 
7, 2022, the Superior Court denied the motion as untimely under Superior Court 
Civil Rule 59(e), which requires the filing of a motion for reargument within five 
days of the filing of the Superior Court’s decision.  Even using April 21, 2022 as the 
operative date, the Superior Court found Thompson’s May 17, 2022 motion for 
reconsideration would be untimely.  This appeal followed. 
(7) 
On appeal, Thompson argues that the Superior Court erred in granting 
Employer’s motion for summary judgment.  He does not address the Superior 
Court’s denial of his untimely motion for reargument.  Employer argues that this 
 
4 
Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Thompson’s arguments regarding the Superior 
Court’s summary judgment decision because he did not appeal that decision to this 
Court within thirty days of April 1, 2022.  Employer is correct. 
(8) 
A timely filed motion for reargument is the proper device for seeking 
reconsideration of a trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.1  In the 
Superior Court, a motion for reargument must be filed within five days of the filing 
of the order that the movant seeks to reargue.2  The Superior Court granted 
Employer’s motion for summary judgment on April 1, 2022.  Thompson did not file 
his motion for reconsideration, which was equivalent to a motion for reargument, 
until May 17, 2022.  Even if the five-day period to file a motion for  reargument ran 
from April 21, 2022 when Thompson says he received the Superior Court’s April 1, 
2022 decision, Thompson did not file his motion until May 17, 2022, long after the 
five-day period had expired.  The Superior Court did not err in denying Thompson’s 
untimely motion for reargument. 
(9) 
An untimely motion for reargument does not toll the time for filing an 
appeal in this Court.3  Because the motion for reargument was untimely and 
Thompson did not file this appeal until more than the thirty days after the Superior 
 
1 Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del. 1969). 
2 Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e). 
3 McDaniel v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 860 A.2d 321, 323 (Del. 2004) (“[A] motion for reargument 
will delay the finality of a judgment only if it is filed in a timely manner.”). 
 
5 
Court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Employer, this Court lacks 
jurisdiction to consider Thompson’s claims concerning the Superior Court’s 
summary judgment decision.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior  
Court is AFFIRMED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice