West v. Access Control Related Enterprises, LLC ( 2021 )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
WILLIAM WEST, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) C.A. No. N17C-11-137 MMJ CCLD
ACCESS CONTROL RELATED )
ENTERPRISES, LLC; LLR EQUITY )
PARTNERS, IV, L.P.; LLR EQUITY )
PARTNERS PARALLEL IV, L.P.; )
SETH LEHR, an individual; )
DAVID STIENES, an individual; )
GREG CASE, an individual; )
ROBERT CHEFITZ, an individual; and )
JOSEPH GRILLO, an individual. )
)
Defendants. )
Submitted: October 19, 2021
Decided: December 1, 2021
On Plaintiff’s Motion for Reargument
DENIED
ORDER
1. By Order dated September 27, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Renewed
Motion to Dismiss.
2. Plaintiff has moved for reargument. Plaintiff contends that the Court
misapprehended material facts about the status of the related case pending in
California.
1
3. Plaintiff further asserts that the Court misapprehended material facts about
the status of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff
also cites a decision of the California Court that Defendants would not be prejudiced
by proceeding in California on all claims.
4. The purpose of moving for reargument is to seek reconsideration of
findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment of law. 1 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
misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the
decision.2 “A motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the
arguments already decided by the court.”3 To the extent Plaintiff has asserted issues
that were not raised in the submissions in support of its motion, new arguments may
not be presented for the first time in a motion for reargument. 4
5. 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.
1
Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del. 1969).
2
Ferguson v. Vakili, 2005 WL 628026, at *1 (Del. Super.).
3
Wilmington Trust Co. v. Nix, 2002 WL 356371, at *1 (Del. Super.).
4
Oliver v. Boston University, 2006 WL 4782232, at *1 (Del. Ch.).
2
THEREFORE, Defendants’ Motion for Reargument is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary M. Johnston
The Honorable Mary M. Johnston
3