Court Opinion

ID: 9394792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 15:03:23.50524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:02.839000
License: Public Domain

COURT OF CHANCERY
                                      OF THE
    SAM GLASSCOCK III           STATE OF DELAWARE                     COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
     VICE CHANCELLOR                                                           34 THE CIRCLE
                                                                        GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

                               Date Submitted: May 11, 2023
                                Date Decided: May 16, 2023

    Sean J. Bellew, Esquire                         Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esquire
    BELLEW LLC                                      Lauren K. Neal, Esquire
    2961 Centerville Road                           Michael J. Slobom, Jr., Esquire
    Suite 302                                       MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &
    Wilmington, DE 19808                            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”)1 for Reargument of

my Memorandum Opinion of April 27, 2023 (the “Opinion”),2 together 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).
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 Defendant8 is 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.
                                              2
      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

                                        3