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