Court Opinion

ID: 9395559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 15:04:38.086796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:09.308925
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 GMG INSURANCE AGENCY,                           )
                                                 )
             Plaintiff,                          )
                                                 )
             v.                                  ) C.A. No. N21C-07-002 MMJ
                                                 )
 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN,                             )
                                                 )
             Defendants.                         )

                                  Submitted: May 9, 2023
                                  Decided: May 17, 2023

                           On Plaintiff’s Motion for Reargument
                                          DENIED

                                         ORDER

Michael R. Ippoliti, Esq., Ippoliti Law Group, Wilmington, DE, Attorney for
Plaintiff

Sally J. Daugherty, Esq., Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi, LLP, Wilmington,
DE, George M. Vinci, Jr., Esq. (pro hac vice), David B. Picker, Esq. (pro hac
vice), Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Attorneys for Defendant

JOHNSTON, J.
        1.        By Opinion dated April 10, 2023, the Court granted Defendant

Margolis Edelstein’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court

held:
                The Court finds the evidence fails to support Plaintiff’s
                legal malpractice claim. The Court finds that there was no
                reason to conclude Defendant breached the standard of
                care when developing the factual record, or when
                presenting the Underlying Litigation Motion for Summary
                Judgment on the tortious interference issue. The Court
                finds the Wilson Affidavit was a superseding cause of
                Plaintiff’s alleged loss. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion
                for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.1

         2.     Plaintiff GMG Insurance Agency (“Plaintiff”) has moved for

reargument. Plaintiff contends: (1) the Court erred by holding as a matter of law

that the Wilson Affidavit was a superseding cause of Plaintiff’s alleged loss; (2)

the Court erred by not recognizing that had Defendant conducted organized,

systematic discovery, Defendant would have learned enough about Mr. Wilson to

reasonably anticipate he might change or reverse his future testimony; and (3) the

Court erred by not recognizing that the Court of Chancery would have dismissed

the tortious interference claim if Defendant had competently briefed the

Underlying Litigation Motion for Summary Judgment.

         3.     The purpose of moving for reargument is to seek reconsideration of

findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment of law.2 Reargument usually will

be denied unless the moving party demonstrates that the Court overlooked a

precedent or legal principle that would have a controlling effect, or that it has

1
    GMG Ins. Agency v. Margolis Edelstein, 2023 WL 2854760, at *5 (Del. Super.).
2
    Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del. 1969).
                                               2
misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the

decision.3 “A motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the

arguments already decided by the court.”4 To the extent the parties asserted issues

that were not raised in the submissions in support of summary judgment motions,

new arguments may not be presented for the first time in a motion for reargument.5

       4.     The Court has reviewed and considered the parties’ written

submissions and arguments. The Court did not overlook a controlling precedent or

legal principle, or misapprehend the law or the facts in a manner affecting the

outcome of the decision.

       THEREFORE, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reargument is hereby DENIED.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                /s/ Mary M. Johnston
                                           The Honorable Mary M. Johnston

3
  Ferguson v. Vakili, 2005 WL 628026, at *1 (Del. Super.).
4
  Wilmington Trust Co. v. Nix, 2002 WL 356371, at *1 (Del. Super.).
5
  Oliver v. Boston University, 2006 WL 4782232, at *1 (Del. Ch.).
                                              3