COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

Sam Glasscock III

VICE CHANCELLOR

CHANCERY COURTHOUSE

34 The Circle

GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

AND

NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE

500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 11400

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19980-3734

Date Submitted: November 8, 2021

Date Decided: November 18, 2021

Richard A. Forsten, Esquire Max Walton, Esquire

Saul Ewing LLP Connolly Gallagher LLP

1201 Market Street, Suite 2300 1201 N. Market Street, 20th Floor

Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19801

RE: Ocean Bay Mart, Inc. v. The City of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware

 C.A. No. 2019-0467-SG

Dear Counsel:

Following post-trial briefing in this matter, I issued a Memorandum Opinion 

on October 13, 2021, concluding that the Plaintiff, Ocean Bay Mart, Inc., had not 

secured vested rights (the “Opinion”).

1 The Plaintiff submitted a Motion for 

Reargument on October 20, 2021 (the “Motion”),

2 which was opposed by the City 

of Rehoboth Beach on October 27, 2021.3 Reply briefing was filed November 5, 

2021.4

 For the reasons stated below, the Motion is denied. 

1 See generally Ocean Bay Mart v. City of Rehoboth Beach, 2021 WL 4771246 (Del. Ch. Oct. 

13, 2021). 

2 See Ocean Bay Mart, Inc.’s Mot. Reargument, Dkt. No. 77 [hereinafter “Mot.”]. 3 See City of Rehoboth Beach’s Br. Opp’n Pl.’s Mot. Reargument, Dkt. No. 79. 

4 See Reply Pl. Ocean Bay Mart, Inc. supp. Mot. Re-argument, Dkt. No. 83 [hereinafter “Reply 

Br.”]. 
A motion for reargument should be granted where the court “has misapplied 

the law or misapprehended a fact in such a manner that affects the outcome of the 

case.”5 “Where the motion merely rehashes arguments already made by the parties 

and considered by the Court when reaching the decision from which reargument is 

sought, the motion must be denied.”6

The applicable law in determining whether a plaintiff has secured vested 

rights is a balancing test which necessarily lends itself to fact-finding at the posttrial stage. The Plaintiff’s Motion advances four bases that purportedly call for 

reargument, principally suggesting that I either misapprehended or failed to fully 

consider certain facts.7 Other points of concern for the Plaintiff are pure

disagreement about the characterization of the record or the weight applied in 

balancing facts.

8

5 Silver Lake v. Urquhart, 1998 WL 157370, at *1 (Del. Ch. Mar. 20, 1998).

6 Wong v. USES Holding Corp., 2016 WL 1436594, at *1 (Del. Ch. Apr. 5, 2016) (citing Lewis 

v. Aronson, 1985 WL 21141, at *2 (Del. Ch. June 7, 1985)). 7 For instance, the Plaintiff suggests that I overlooked the prior approval of similar condominium 

projects. See Reply Br. at 7. I addressed this in the Opinion. See Ocean Bay Mart, 2021 WL 

4771246, at *9. The Plaintiff also indicates that the Opinion misunderstood that the 

“Newcomb/Sullivan conversation specifically addressed the Table [of Regulations] with respect 

to the main/subordinate building issue.” See Reply Br. at 7. The Newcomb/Sullivan 

conversation is discussed in detail in the Opinion, ultimately finding that while the email was of 

some reliance value to the Plaintiff, it was not sufficient to justify a finding of reasonable 

reliance. See Ocean Bay Mart, 2021 WL 4771246, at *10. Whether the conversation

specifically addressed the Table of Regulations does not alter this finding. 

8 See, for example, the argument that “[t]here was nothing ‘obscure’ or ‘opaque’ about the 

meeting between Ms. Newcomb and Ms. Sullivan.” See Mot. at 3.
The Plaintiff has not advanced new arguments or pointed to facts that would 

change my overall conclusion but has merely rehashed old arguments previously 

presented in its papers and at trial. Its position is that I decided these facts wrongly

in the Opinion. If so, the remedy is via appeal. 

For the forgoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED. 

Sincerely,

 /s/ Sam Glasscock III

Vice Chancellor

cc: All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)