COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

SAM GLASSCOCK III

VICE CHANCELLOR

STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE

34 THE CIRCLE

GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

Date Submitted: May 11, 2023

Date Decided: May 16, 2023

Sean J. Bellew, Esquire

BELLEW LLC

2961 Centerville Road

Suite 302

Wilmington, DE 19808

Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esquire

Lauren K. Neal, Esquire

Michael J. Slobom, Jr., Esquire

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & 

TUNNELL LLP

1201 North Market Street

Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Re: Pimpaktra A. Rust v. Vina Elise Rust, et al.,

Civil Action No. 2020-0762-SG

Dear Counsel:

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

my Memorandum Opinion of April 27, 2023 (the “Opinion”),2together 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 resulted 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 predicated 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 impertinent 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 Defendant8is granted, without prejudice to Bryn Mawr’s right to move to 

dismiss. The time for any responsive pleading or motion is STAYED. 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 Regarding 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 GRANTED. 

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

ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Sam Glasscock III

Sam Glasscock III