Court Opinion

ID: 9889408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-10 14:04:05.084025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:35:11.703518
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DELAWARE STATE                       )
SPORTSMEN’S ASSOCIATION,             )
INC., et al.                         )
                                     )
            Plaintiffs,              )
                                     )     C.A. No.: K23C-05-024 RLG
      v.                             )
                                     )
DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF               )
SAFETY AND HOMELAND                  )
SECURITY, et al.                     )
                                     )
            Defendants.              )

                          Submitted: September 1, 2023
                           Decided: October 6, 2023

                                    ORDER

           Upon Consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reargument

                                   DENIED.

Francis G.X. Pileggi, Esquire; Sean M. Brennecke, Esquire; and Aimee M.
Czachorowski, Esquire, Lewis Brisbois Brisgaard & Smith, LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware, for Plaintiffs.

David E. Ross, Esquire; Bradley R. Aronstam, Esquire; Garrett B. Moritz, Esquire;
S. Reiko Rogozen, Esquire; Holly Newell, Esquire; Elizabeth M. Taylor, Esquire;
and Thomas C. Mandracchia, Esquire, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware, for Defendants

Kenneth L. Wan, Esquire and Zi-Xiang Shen, Esquire, Deputy Attorneys General,
Wilmington, Delaware, for Defendants

GREEN-STREETT, J.
         This 6th day of October, 2023, upon consideration of the Motion for

Reargument brought by Plaintiffs, it appears to the Court that:

      1. On August 11, 2023, the Court issued a sua sponte oral order staying this case

         on the basis that this matter addresses similar and corollary issues as a separate

         action brought by Plaintiffs currently pending appeal in the United States

         Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiffs now move for reargument

         of the Court’s decision.       After careful review of the parties’ written

         submissions and arguments, the Motion must be DENIED.

      2. This case involves a constitutional challenge to two statutes enacted by the

         Delaware General Assembly. The challenged statutes – HB 4501 and SS 1 for

         SB 62 – prohibit the purchase, ownership, and possession of certain types of

         firearms and ammunition magazines, subject to some exceptions. On July 20,

         2023, Plaintiffs sought leave to expand the page limit for their summary

         judgment motion. In their application to this Court, Plaintiffs summarized the

         federal case challenge as well as that case’s posture in federal court. Plaintiffs

         outlined that “[t]he pending federal appeal includes five Amici Curiae briefs

         and two co-appellant briefs, which together exceed 200 pages, for the opening

1
    11 Del. C. §§1464-1467.
2
    11 Del. C. §1468(2), 1469.

                                              2
          briefs only.”3 Plaintiffs then further explicated the interplay of the federal and

          state rights at issue:

                                Many of the arguments in those pending
                                briefs of 200-plus pages will need to be
                                addressed in our upcoming motion for
                                summary judgment in this Court, because
                                the U.S. Constitution provides the
                                minimum level of rights – and the state
                                cannot provide fewer rights.

                                Although the Delaware Constitution may –
                                and does – recognize greater rights under
                                Article I, Section 20 than the U.S.
                                Constitution provides, we need to establish
                                the baseline federal rights first, before we
                                can address the broader rights that the
                                Delaware Constitution provides.4

          Based upon this explication, the Court stayed this case pending resolution of

          the federal appeal.

      3. Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) permits the Court to reconsider its findings of

          fact, conclusions of law, or judgments.5 It is well-settled that Rule 59(e) relief

          is appropriate only if the Court overlooked a controlling precedent or legal

          principle, or the Court misapprehended the law or facts such that it would have

3
    Pl.’s Req. to Exceed Word Limit at 2 (July 20, 2023).
4
    Id.
5
 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e) (providing a vehicle for motions for reargument of the Court’s decisions);
see also Bd. of Managers of the Del. Crim. Just. Info. Sys. v. Gannett Co., 2003 WL 1579170, at
*1 (Del. Super. Jan. 17, 2003), aff’d in part, 840 A.2d 1232 (Del. 2003).

                                                  3
           affected the outcome of the underlying decision.6 It is equally well-settled

           that a motion for reargument is not a device for rehashing arguments already

           presented or for raising new arguments.7

       4. This Court maintains wide discretion in controlling its docket.8                  That

           discretion includes managing its docket in a manner that promotes efficiency

           – both for the Court and the parties.9 “[T]he power to grant a stay always

           exists in a Court by virtue of its right to control the disposition of cases on its

           docket … .”10

       5. The Court did not overlook a controlling precedent or legal principle, nor has

           it misapprehended the law or facts in a manner affecting the outcome of its

           decision. The Court exercised its discretionary power to manage its docket in

           a manner that neither harms nor prejudices any party – and promotes

           efficiency and judicial economy.

       6. THEREFORE, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.

6
 See Kappa Alpha Educ. Found., Inc. v. City of Newark, 2020 WL 62618, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan.
6, 2020) (setting forth the bases for reargument of a decision in a civil matter).
7
 Cunningham v. Horvath, 2004 WL 2191035, at *2 (Del. Super. Jul. 30, 2004) (noting that a
motion for reargument is not an opportunity for a party to “rehash the arguments already decided
by the [C]ourt.”).
8
     Unbound Partners Ltd. P'ship v. Invoy Holdings Inc., 251 A.3d 1016, 1030 (Del. Super. 2021).
9
     Id.
10
  Lanova Corp. v. Atlas Imperial Diesel Engine Co., 64 A.2d 419, 420 (Del. Super. 1949). See
also Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936).
                                                  4
IT IS SO ORDERED.

                    5