Janeve Co. v. City of Wilmington

Full title: JANEVE CO., INC., ADJILE, INC., STANLEY WOJCIECHOWSKI, HERSHEY…

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Jul 24, 2009

C.A. No. 08A-04-011 WCC (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 24, 2009)

Opinion

C.A. No. 08A-04-011 WCC.

Submitted: July 10, 2009.

Decided: July 24, 2009.

On Appellant's Motion for Reargument — DENIED.

Stanley C. Lowicki, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appellants.

Brenda James-Roberts, Esquire, Senior First Assistant City Solicitor. Louis L. Redding City/County Building, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appellees.

ORDER

CARPENTER, J.Page 2

On this 24^th day of July, 2009, upon consideration of Janeve Co.'s Motion for Reargument, it appears to the Court that:

1. Janeve Co., et al. (the "Appellants"), have filed a Motion for Reargument with respect to this Court's opinion of May 7, 2009. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant's Motion for Reargument is DENIED.

2. A motion for reargument shall be granted where the Court has "overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles, or the Court has misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision."¹ The Court will not consider arguments already raised and decided as it is not the purpose of a motion for reargument to "rehash" old arguments, or issues that could have been raised initially.² To succeed on such a motion, the moving party must demonstrate the existence of "newly discovered evidence, a change in the law or manifest injustice."³

1 Reid v. Hindt, 2008 WL 2943373, at *1 (Del.Super. July 31, 2008) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Lamourine v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 2007 WL 3379048, at *2 (Del.Super. Sept. 24, 2007)).

2 Id. (citing State v. Brooks, 2008 WL 435085, at *2 (Del.Super. Feb. 12, 2008)).

3 Id. ( Brooks, 2008 WL 435085, at *2) (internal quotations omitted).

3. The Court finds that it has not misapprehended the law in such a manner that would have changed the Court's original opinion. Further, the Appellant has not met its burden of demonstrating manifest injustice or a change in the law. The arguments made in the present motion are simply a restatement of the Appellant's previous contentions that have been rejected by the Court over the past five years.

4. For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant's Motion for Reargument is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.