COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE
S AM G LASS C OCK III V ICE C HANCELLOR STATE OF DELAWARE C OURT OF C HANCERY C OURTHOUSE 34 T HE C IRCLE G EORGETOWN , D ELAWARE 19947

Date Submitted: May 11 , 2 023 Date Decided: May 16, 2023

Sean J. Bellew, Esq uire BELLEW LLC 2961 Centerville Road Suite 302 Wilmington, DE 19808 Kenneth J. Nachbar , Esq uire Lauren K. Neal , Esq uire Michael J. Slobom, Jr. , Esq uire MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP 1201 North Market Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Re: Pimpaktra A. Rust v. Vina Elise Rust, et al.
, C ivil Action No. 2020

- 0762

- SG

Dear Counsel:

I have reviewed the Plaintiff’s Motion (the “Motion”) 1 for Reargument of

my Memorandum Opinion of April 27, 2023 (the “Opinion”), 2 together with the

Defendants’ Response. 3 A motion for reargument is appropriate where a party

maintains that a ruling of the Court misapprehended controlling law or fact that

would have resul ted in a different outcome absent those shortcomings. 4 Plaintiff’s

Motion ably argues the Plaintiff’s case regarding the Defendants’ Motion to

1 Pl .’ s Mot

. Reargument or Alternatively Clarification , Dkt. No. 164.
2 Rust v. Rust , 2023 WL 3120545, (Del. Ch. Apr. 27, 2023).
3 Defs

. ’ Opp ’ n Pl

. ’s Mot Reargument, or Alternatively Clarification , Dkt. No. 166.
4 Fisk Ventures, LLC v. Segal , 2008 WL 2721743, at *1 (Del. Ch. July 3, 2008), aff’d , 984 A.2d 124 (Del. 2009) (“To succeed and obtain reargument, the moving party must demonstrate that the Court's decision was pr edicated upon a misunderstanding of a material fact or a misapplication of the law.”) (internal quotation omitted).2

Enforce Settlement, 5 which was the subject of the Opinion. I find, however, that

those arguments are impertin ent here; all the points of law raised, and the facts

alleged, in the Motion were already argued and rejected in the Opinion, or were
not raised before the Opinion issued, and are thus waived. 6 In either event,

Plaintiff’s arguments, whatever their merit , are not a matter for reargument. Any

remedy must be via appeal.

The Motion also seeks “clarification” of certain issues remaining in

connection with enforcement of the settlement document. That process is best

addressed by the parties in mediation, to which the Plaintiff has consented. 7

Finally, a separate motion to amend the Complaint to add Bryn Mawr Trust

as a Defendant 8 is granted, without prejudice to Bryn Mawr’s right to move to

dismiss. The time for any responsive pleading or motion is STAYE D. That stay is

to permit Bryn Mawr to participate in the forthcoming mediation, under Rule

174( d ).

5 See Defs

. ’ Mot

. Enforce Settlement , Dkt. No. 120.
6 See Scott v. E.H. Fortitude, Inc. , 2023 WL 2880001, at *3 (Del. Ch. Apr. 6, 2023) (“A Rule 59(f) motion is ‘not a mechanism to present new arguments or to relitigate claims already considered by the Court.’”) (quoting Cabela’s LLC v. Wellman , 2018 WL 6680972, at *1 (Del. Ch. Dec. 19, 2018) ).
7 Letter to The Honorable Sam Glasscock III from Sean J. Bellew R egarding Memorandum Opinion , Dkt. No. 165.
8 Pl .’ s Mot

. Leave to File Verified Second Am

. and Supplemented Compl ., Dkt. No. 122.3

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Reargument is DENIED. The

request for clarification is deferred pending mediation under Rule 174. The Motion

to Amend is G RANTED

. To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO

ORDERED.

Sincerely
,

/s/ Sam Glasscock III

Sam Glass cock III