Categories: Delaware Court Opinions

COX v. BOYER, 04C-03-195 SCD (Del.Super. 2004)

A.J. COX, Plaintiff, v. BRUCE BOYER, Defendant. BRUCE BOYER and SLOAN MANAGEMENT, INC., Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v. A.J. COX, and BROADMEADOW HEALTH CARE, LLP, Counterclaim Defendants.

C.A. No. 04C-03-195 SCD.Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.Submitted July 22, 2004.
Decided August 23, 2004.

ORDER
SUSAN C. DEL PESCO, Judge.

This 23rd day of August, 2004, upon consideration of Defendant, Bruce Boyer’s (“Boyer”), motion for reargument as to the issues of severance and the “Lender’s `Setoff’ Remedy”, it appears:

1. Boyer advances no new facts or arguments as were previously submitted in their original motion decided by the Court on July 9, 2004.

2. To prevail on a motion for reargument a party must demonstrate that the Court has misapprehended the law or the facts such as would affect the outcome of the decision.[1] The need for reargument has not been demonstrated.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reargument is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[1] Monsanto Co. v. Aetna Cas. Surety Co., Del. Super., C.A. No. 88-JA-118, Ridgely, P.J. (Jan. 14, 1994) citing Wilshire Rest. Group, Inc. v. Ramada, Inc., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 11506, Jacobs, V.C. (Dec. 27, 1990) (Letter Op.), 1990 Del. Ch. LEXIS 212.

jdjungle