IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

FEENIX PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, et 

al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

MICHAEL BLUM,

Defendant.

)

) 

) 

) C.A. No. N21C-05-099 EMD CCLD

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

Submitted: June 26, 2024

Decided: July 16, 2024

Upon Defendant Michael Blum’s Motion to Reargue or Amend or Alter Judgment

DENIED

Daniel A. Griffith, Esq., Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Scott M. Hare, 

Esq., Jordan N. Winslow, Esq., Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

Counsel for Plaintiffs Feenix Payment Systems, LLC, FVP Opportunity Fund GP, LLC, FVP 

Opportunity Fund II GP, LLC, Feenix Venture Partners Opportunity Fund, LLP, FVP Smithfield, 

LLC, and Keith Lee.

John A. Sensing, Esq., Jesse L. Noa, Esq., Andrew M. Moshos, Esq., Potter Anderson & Corroon, 

Wilmington, Delaware, Andrew Moss, Esq., Kutner Rubinoff & Moss, LLP, Coconut Grove, 

Florida, David B. Mishael, Esq., David B. Mishael, P.A., Coconut Grove, Florida. Counsel for 

Defendant Michael Blum.

DAVIS, J.

On May 29, 2024, the Court issued its Decision After Trial (the “Decision”).

1

 In the 

Decision, the Court awarded judgment in favor of Feenix on Count II and awarded damages in 

the amount of $11,212.50 plus applicable prejudgment interest. The Court granted Feenix leave 

to seek additional recovery under Civil Rule 54. 

1 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Decision.
On June 3, 2024, Mr. Blum filed Defendant Michael Blum’s Motion to Reargue or 

Amend or Alter Judgment (the “Motion”).2 Feenix filed its Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to 

Motion to Reargue or Amend or Alter Judgment (the “Response”).3 The Court has reviewed the 

Motion, the Response, the Decision and the entire record of this civil proceeding. After review, 

the Court has determined that no hearing is necessary and, for the reasons set forth below, 

DENIES the Motion. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) (“Civil Rule 59(e)”) provides that a party may file a 

motion for reargument “within 5 days after the filing of the Court’s Order or decision.”4 The 

standard for a Civil Rule 59(e) motion is well defined under Delaware law.5 A motion for 

reargument will be denied unless the Court has overlooked precedent or legal principles that 

would have controlling effect, or misapprehended the law or the facts such as would affect the 

outcome of the decision.6

Motions for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already 

decided by the court,7or to present new arguments not previously raised.8 In other words, a 

motion for reargument is “not a device for raising new arguments or stringing out the length of 

time for making an argument.”9 Such tactics frustrate the efficient use of judicial resources, 

2 D.I. No. ___.

3 D.I. No. 209.

4 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e).

5 Kennedy v. Invacare Corp., C.A. No. 04C-06-028, 2006 WL 488590, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 31, 2006).

6 Woodward v. Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., C.A. No. 00C-08-066, 2001 WL 1456865, at *1 (Del. Super. Aug. 24, 

2001).

7

Id.

8 Plummer v. Sherman, C.A. No. 99C-08-010, 2004 WL 63414, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 14, 2004); see also Bd. of 

Managers of the Del. Crim. Justice Info. Sys. v. Gannett Co., C.A. No. 01C-01-039, 2003 WL 1579170, at *3–4 

(Del. Super. Jan. 17, 2003) rev’d on other grounds, Gannett Co. v. Bd. of Managers of the Del. Crim. Justice Info. 

Sys., 840 A.2d 1232 (Del. 2003).

9 Gannett, 2003 WL 1579170, at *1. 
place the opposing party in an unfair position, and stymie “the orderly process of reaching 

closure on the issues.”10 

II. DISCUSSION

In the Motion, Mr. Blum seeks reconsideration of the Court’s findings that (i) Feenix’s 

claims for $11,212.50 in damages was supported by admissible evidence; (ii) neither party was 

the “prevailing party” entitled to contractual attoneys’ fees; and (iii) Feenix should pay Mr. Blum 

attorneys’ fees because Feenix unnecessarily prolonged and increased the cost of litigation. 

Feenix opposes, contending that Mr. Blum is merely rehashing arguments already made and 

ruled upon by the Court.

After reviewing the Decision and the arguments previously made by the parties at trial 

and in post-trial briefing, the Court finds that it did not overlook legal precedent or misapprehend 

the law or facts such that it would affect the decision. In its Motion, Mr. Blum merely reworks

arguments it made at Trial and in post-trial briefing. Though Mr. Blum may disagree with the 

Court’s application of the facts to the claims and issues, the Court maintains that it properly 

arrived at the Decisions’ conclusions after considering all the points raised in the Motion. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED. 

Dated: July 16, 2024

Wilmington, Delaware

/s/ Eric M. Davis

Eric M. Davis, Judge

cc: File&ServeXpress

10 Plummer, 2004 WL 63414, at *2.