COURT OF CHANCERY 

OF THE 

STATE OF DELAWARE

JOSEPH R. SLIGHTS III

VICE CHANCELLOR

417 S. State Street

Dover, Delaware 19901

Telephone: (302) 739-4397

Facsimile: (302) 739-6179

Date Submitted: November 24, 2020

Date Decided: December 1, 2020

Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esquire

Miranda N. Gilbert, Esquire

Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

1201 North Market Street

Wilmington, DE 19801 

Thomas E. Hanson, Jr., Esquire

William J. Burton, Esquire

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

1000 North West Street, Suite 1500

Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: Epic/Freedom, LLC, et al. v. Aveanna Healthcare, LLC, et al.

C.A. No. 2020-0908-JRS

Dear Counsel:

I have Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Scheduling Order Granting 

Expedited Proceedings (D.I. 24) (the “Motion”) and Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the 

Motion (D.I. 30). The Motion is denied. “A motion for reargument under Court of 

Chancery Rule 59(f) will be denied unless the court has overlooked a controlling 

decision or principle of law that would have controlling effect, or the court has 

misapprehended the law or the facts so that the outcome of the decision would be 
Epic/Freedom, LLC, et al. v. Aveanna Healthcare, LLC, et al.

C.A. No. 2020-0908-JRS

December 1, 2020

Page 2

different.”1 Reargument “is only available to re-examine the existing record,”2 not 

to consider new evidence, entertain arguments not raised previously or rehash 

arguments already made.3

 In other words, reargument motions may not be used to 

re-litigate matters already fully litigated or to present arguments or evidence that 

could have been presented before the court entered the order from which reargument 

is sought.4

 

The Motion fails to identify any controlling precedent or principal of law the 

Court overlooked in granting expedited scheduling. Instead, it offers new 

 1 Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Nat’l Installment Ins. Servs., Inc., 2008 

WL 2133417, at *1 (Del. Ch. May 21, 2008).

2 Reserves Dev. LLC v. Severn Sav. Bank, FSB, 2007 WL 4644708, at *1 (Del. Ch. Dec. 31, 

2007) (citing Miles, Inc. v. Cookson Am., Inc., 677 A.2d 505, 506 (Del. Ch. 1995)).

3 Id. (“Reargument under Court of Chancery Rule 59(f) is only available to re-examine the 

existing record; therefore, new evidence generally will not be considered on a Rule 59(f) 

motion.”); Sunrise Ventures, LLC v. Rehoboth Canal Ventures, LLC, 2010 WL 975581, 

at *1 (Del. Ch. Mar. 4, 2010) (“[A] motion for reargument is ‘not a mechanism for litigants 

to relitigate claims already considered by the court,’ or to raise new arguments that they 

failed to present in a timely way.” (quoting Am. Legacy Found. v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 

895 A.2d 874, 877 (Del. Ch. 2005)); Miles, 677 A.2d at 506 (“Where . . . the motion for 

reargument represents a mere rehash of arguments already made at trial and during posttrial briefing, the motion must be denied.”).

4 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1 (2020).
Epic/Freedom, LLC, et al. v. Aveanna Healthcare, LLC, et al.

C.A. No. 2020-0908-JRS

December 1, 2020

Page 3

arguments, based on purportedly new developments, that could have been advanced

in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Expedite had Defendants elected to withdraw 

their opposition/defenses to the so-called Tax Audit claim prior to the presentation 

of that motion. A motion for reargument (or “reconsideration”) is not the proper 

vehicle through which to present Defendants’ new arguments. 

Defendants have moved to transfer the so-called Tax Refund claim back to 

the Superior Court (D.I. 29). The Court will consider Defendants’ arguments with 

respect to this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction in connection with that motion.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

/s/ Joseph R. Slights III