COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
Sam Glasscock III CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
VICE CHANCELLOR 34 The Circle
GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947
AND
NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 11400
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19980-3734
Date Submitted: November 8, 2021
Date Decided: November 18, 2021
Richard A. Forsten, Esquire Max Walton, Esquire
Saul Ewing LLP Connolly Gallagher LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 2300 1201 N. Market Street, 20th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: Ocean Bay Mart, Inc. v. The City of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware
C.A. No. 2019-0467-SG
Dear Counsel:
Following post-trial briefing in this matter, I issued a Memorandum Opinion
on October 13, 2021, concluding that the Plaintiff, Ocean Bay Mart, Inc., had not
secured vested rights (the “Opinion”). 1 The Plaintiff submitted a Motion for
Reargument on October 20, 2021 (the “Motion”), 2 which was opposed by the City
of Rehoboth Beach on October 27, 2021.3 Reply briefing was filed November 5,
2021. 4 For the reasons stated below, the Motion is denied.
1
See generally Ocean Bay Mart v. City of Rehoboth Beach, 2021 WL 4771246 (Del. Ch. Oct.
13, 2021).
2
See Ocean Bay Mart, Inc.’s Mot. Reargument, Dkt. No. 77 [hereinafter “Mot.”].
3
See City of Rehoboth Beach’s Br. Opp’n Pl.’s Mot. Reargument, Dkt. No. 79.
4
See Reply Pl. Ocean Bay Mart, Inc. supp. Mot. Re-argument, Dkt. No. 83 [hereinafter “Reply
Br.”].
A motion for reargument should be granted where the court “has misapplied
the law or misapprehended a fact in such a manner that affects the outcome of the
case.”5 “Where the motion merely rehashes arguments already made by the parties
and considered by the Court when reaching the decision from which reargument is
sought, the motion must be denied.”6
The applicable law in determining whether a plaintiff has secured vested
rights is a balancing test which necessarily lends itself to fact-finding at the post-
trial stage. The Plaintiff’s Motion advances four bases that purportedly call for
reargument, principally suggesting that I either misapprehended or failed to fully
consider certain facts.7 Other points of concern for the Plaintiff are pure
disagreement about the characterization of the record or the weight applied in
balancing facts.8
5
Silver Lake v. Urquhart, 1998 WL 157370, at *1 (Del. Ch. Mar. 20, 1998).
6
Wong v. USES Holding Corp., 2016 WL 1436594, at *1 (Del. Ch. Apr. 5, 2016) (citing Lewis
v. Aronson, 1985 WL 21141, at *2 (Del. Ch. June 7, 1985)).
7
For instance, the Plaintiff suggests that I overlooked the prior approval of similar condominium
projects. See Reply Br. at 7. I addressed this in the Opinion. See Ocean Bay Mart, 2021 WL
4771246, at *9. The Plaintiff also indicates that the Opinion misunderstood that the
“Newcomb/Sullivan conversation specifically addressed the Table [of Regulations] with respect
to the main/subordinate building issue.” See Reply Br. at 7. The Newcomb/Sullivan
conversation is discussed in detail in the Opinion, ultimately finding that while the email was of
some reliance value to the Plaintiff, it was not sufficient to justify a finding of reasonable
reliance. See Ocean Bay Mart, 2021 WL 4771246, at *10. Whether the conversation
specifically addressed the Table of Regulations does not alter this finding.
8
See, for example, the argument that “[t]here was nothing ‘obscure’ or ‘opaque’ about the
meeting between Ms. Newcomb and Ms. Sullivan.” See Mot. at 3.
The Plaintiff has not advanced new arguments or pointed to facts that would
change my overall conclusion but has merely rehashed old arguments previously
presented in its papers and at trial. Its position is that I decided these facts wrongly
in the Opinion. If so, the remedy is via appeal.
For the forgoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
Sincerely,
/s/ Sam Glasscock III
Vice Chancellor
cc: All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)