IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PIMPAKTRA RUST , ) Plaintiff, )

) v. ) C.A. No. N23C
- 03
- 250 PRW ) VINA ELISE RUST, et al. , ) Defendant s
. )

Submitted: December 21, 202 3 Decided: January 1 1 , 2023
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RE CONSIDERATION OF STAY ENTERED
HAVING FULLY CONSIDERED Plaintiff Pimpaktra Rust’s Motion for Reargument (D.I. 37 ) of th e Court’s decision and order to stay this action (D.I. 36) pending the Court of Chancery’s final order on the Motion to Further Enforce in
Case No. 2020

- 0762

- SG ; Defendants Anissa and Vina Rust’s Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion f

or Reargument (D.I. 38 ); Defendants The Rust Family Office, Thomas Roletter and Patrick Jones’ Notice of Joinder (D.I. 39); the authorities cited;
and the entire record developed thus far , it appears to the Court that: (1) A motion for reargument permits a tri al court to reconsider its findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment. 1 But Delaware law places a heavy burden

1 See Nicholson v. Sullivan, 1993 WL 542297, at *1 (Del. Dec. 6, 1993) (“ A motion for reargument is the proper device for seeking reconsideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Superior Court

. ”) ; Patterson

- Woods & Assoc., LLC v. Independence Mall, Inc. , 2019- 2

-

on one seeking Rule 59 relief. 2 The movant must demonstrate that the Court is obliged to correct an error of law in or prevent manifest injustice deriving from its judgment. 3 “A Rule 59(e) application is not an avenue for the moving party to raise new arguments or to rehash arguments already decided by the Court.” 4 And such motion will be denied unless the Court has “overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles,” or “has misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome of the decision” challenged. 5 Upon its own examination of a Rul e 59(e) application , the Court “will determine from the motion and answer whether reargument [or reconsideration] will be granted.” 6 (2) The Court maintains wide discretion in controlling its docket. 7 And the Court may use that discretion in a manner that p romotes efficiency both for the Court and the parties. 8

WL 6329069, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 26, 2019 ) (“A motion for reconsideration or reargument is governed by Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e).”).
2 Kostyshyn v. Comm ’ rs of Bellefonte, 2007 WL 1241875, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 27, 2007).
3 In re Asbestos Litigation (Hudson) , 2015 WL 5016493, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 25, 2015).
4 Maravilla

- Diego v. MBM Construction II, LLC , 2015 WL 5055955, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 2015) (citing cases).
5 Cummings v. Jimmy’s Grille , 2000 WL 1211167, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 9, 2 000).
6 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e).
7 Solow v. Aspect Res. , LLC , 46 A.3d 1074, 1075 (Del. 2012) (“Delaware trial courts have inherent power to control their dockets”).
8 Unbound Partners Ltd. P'ship v. Invoy Holdings Inc. , 251 A.3d 1016, 1030 (Del. Super . Ct. 2021) (“It is beyond debate that Delaware courts enjoy wide discretion to manage their affairs in a manner that ‘promote[s] economies of time and effort for the court, litigants, and counsel.’ ” ) ( q uoting Brenner v. Albrecht , 2012 WL 252286, at *4 (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2012))

.- 3

-

(3) Ms. Rust ha s not shouldered her heavy Rule 59(e) burden here

. Her

m otion brings up no case, law, or fact that was left unaddressed during the Status
Conference and corresponding Stay Order issued December 11, 2023. Instead,
Ms. Rust ask s the Court to review and overturn a case management decision that lies
well within its discretion by r e sorting to arguments and considerations the Court easily gleaned upon its preliminary examination of the pending motion to dismiss

. (4) The Court overlook ed no controlling precedent or legal principle. Nor
d oes the stay unduly prejudice either party. The underlying declaratory relie f sought here is akin to that which could have been afforded via discovery or other means in the sprawling related litigation between these parties brought or pending in other
fora . And there was, and continues to be, significant overlap between this and the pending Court of Chancery action such that a stay is appropriate before any
declaration is made by this Court

. 9 One must remain mindful that the grant and timing of declaratory relie f is itself a matter within the sound discretion of this
Court. 10 In turn, the Court has exercised its concomitant discretionary power to manage its docket in a way that promotes efficiency and judicial economy for all

9 Oral a rgument on the Motion to Further Enforce was held on December 22, 2023 , and the Chancery Court has yet to issue its final ruling. See D.I. 206 in Rust v. Rust , C.A. No. 2020

- 0762

- SG (Del. Ch.).
10 See Intermec IP Corp. v . TransCore, LP , 2021 WL 3620435, at *25 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 16, 2021) (quoting Town of Cheswold v. Cent. Del. Bus. Park , 188 A.3d 810, 816 (Del. 2018) (“N ot all disputes . . . are appropriate for [a declaration] when the parties request it.” ).- 4

-

involved before it address es what mer its might remain of Ms. Rust’s prayer for a declaration of rights here

. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff ’ s Motion for Reargument is DENIED

. SO ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2024

.

Paul R. Wallace, Judge Original to Prothonotary cc: All counsel via File & Serve Xpress