June 2, 2020

Philip T. Edwards, Esq. Brian D. Tome, Esq.

Murphy & Landon Reilly McDevitt & Henrich, P.C

1011 Centre Rd., Suite 210 1013 Centre Rd., Suite 210

Wilmington, DE 19805 Wilmington, DE 19805

Armand J. Della Porta. Jr., Esq.

Marshall Dennehey Warner 

Coleman & Goggin 

1007 N. Orange St., Suite 600

Wilmington, DE 19899

RE: Gregory J. Long v. Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc., et al. 

C.A. No.: N19C-09-255 MAA

Dear Counsel:

The Court has reviewed Defendant Noramco, Inc.’s (“Noramco”) Motion for 

Reargument and Plaintiff’s opposition thereto.1 For the reasons stated herein, the 

Motion for Reargument is DENIED.

 

1 Noramco also submitted a letter to the Court after Plaintiff filed his Opposition to 

Noramco’s Motion for Reargument. Attached to the letter were several exhibits, 

none of which Noramco made any mention of in its Motion for Reargument. 

Noramco’s disagreement with the Court’s decision denying its Motion to Dismiss 

does not create an exception to Delaware courts’ strict application of Rule 59(e), 

which permits only the filing of a motion and a response. Moreover, affidavits are 

an inappropriate means of supporting a motion to reargue. Fleet Fin. Grp., Inc. v. 

Advanta Corp., 2001 WL 1360119, at *2 (Del. Ch. Nov. 2, 2001). 

SUPERIOR COURT

OF THE 

STATE OF DELAWARE

MEGHAN A. ADAMS LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER

 JUDGE 500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 10400

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801

(302) 255-0634
The moving party faces a heavy burden on a motion for reargument. A motion 

for reargument is not a device for raising new arguments, nor is it intended to rehash 

the arguments already decided by the Court. The only issue on a motion for 

reargument under Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) “is whether the Court overlooked 

something that would have changed its earlier decision.”2 The Motion for 

Reargument will be denied “unless the Court has overlooked a controlling precedent 

or legal principles, or unless the Court has misapprehended the law or facts such as 

would affect the outcome of the decision.”3 

Noramco restates in its Motion for Reargument the same arguments it asserted 

in its Motion to Dismiss and subsequent oral argument and additional briefing. The 

Court has already addressed these arguments in the April 24, 2020 Order and will 

not re-state its rulings here. Noramco’s Motion for Reargument ignores the Court’s 

analysis, misstates the Court’s findings, and appears to misunderstand Delaware’s 

12(b)(6) pleading standard. Noramco has not presented the Court with any 

controlling precedent or legal principles that would change the Court’s decision, nor 

has Noramco shown that the Court misapprehended facts in a material way. 

Noramco’s disagreement with the Court’s decision is not grounds for granting 

 

2 Ferko v. McLaughlin, 1999 WL 167827, at *1 (Del. Super. Feb. 19, 1999) (citing 

McElroy v. Shell Petroleum, Inc., 1992 WL 397468 (Del. Super. Nov. 24, 1992)).

3 Eisenmann Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 2000 WL 303310, at *1 (Del. Super. 

Feb. 24, 2000) (citing Interim Health Care v. Fournier, 1994 WL 148266, at *2 (Del. 

Ch. Mar. 25, 1994)).
reargument. Therefore, the Court will deny Noramco’s Motion for Reargument. IT 

IS SO ORDERED.