RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                             COURT OF CHANCERY
    OF THE
    SAM GLASSCOCK III          STATE OF DELAWARE                 COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
    VICE CHANCELLOR                                                      34 THE CIRCLE
    GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947
    May 7, 2020
    Kevin R. Shannon, Esq.                        Rudolf Koch, Esq.
    Christopher N. Kelly, Esq.                    Kevin M. Gallagher, Esq.
    Daniel M. Rusk, Esq.                          Kevin M. Regan, Esq.
    POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON                     RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER P.A.
    LLP                                           One Rodney Square
    1313 N. Market Street                         920 North King Street
    Wilmington, Delaware 19801                    Wilmington, Delaware 19801
    RE: RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation, et al. v. Freedom
    Mortgage Corporation et al., C.A. No. 2020-0161-SG
    Dear Counsel:
    I have Plaintiffs’ motion for reargument. The Plaintiffs have moved for
    reargument of a scheduling order. A motion for reargument is appropriate in two
    circumstances: where the court has “overlooked a decision or principle of law that
    would have controlling effect or misapprehended the facts or the law so the outcome
    of the decision would be different.” RE: Kratos Def. & Sec. Sols., Inc., v. Securitas
    Elec. Sec., Inc., 
    2020 WL 1922000
    , at *1 (Del. Ch. Apr. 20, 2020) (quoting Pontone
    v. Milso Indus. Corp., 
    2014 WL 4352341
    , at *1 (Del. Ch. Sept. 13, 2014)). Neither
    of those circumstances is present here. Plaintiffs simply disagree with a matter
    within the court’s discretion. Coleman v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, 
    902 A.2d 1102
    , 1107 (Del. 2006) (“It is well settled that the trial court has discretion to resolve
    scheduling issues and to control its own docket.” (internal quotations omitted)).
    Therefore, to the extent I consider the Plaintiffs’ motion a motion for reargument it
    is denied.
    I find it appropriate, however, to consider the Plaintiffs’ motion a motion for
    reconsideration of scheduling, I have directed my Assistant to contact the parties to
    schedule a teleconference promptly regarding moving this matter forward.
    To the extent the foregoing requires an order to take effect, it is SO
    ORDERED.
    Sincerely,
    /s/ Sam Glasscock III
    Sam Glasscock III
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA No. 2020-0161-SG

Judges: Glasscock, V.C.

Filed Date: 5/7/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/7/2020