Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Maddox v. CitiMortgage, Inc.

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent

February 28, 2014

LEO R. MADDOX, Plaintiff,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC. Defendant.

Submitted: December 20, 2013

Upon Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument. Denied.

Leo R. Maddox, pro se

Lisa R. Hatfield, Esquire of Morris Hardwick Schneider, LLC, Newark, Delaware; attorney for Defendant.

ORDER

William L. Witham, Jr. Resident Judge

The issue before the Court is whether the Court should grant Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Leo R. Maddox (hereinafter "Plaintiff") has filed the instant Motion for Reargument concerning this Court's December 13, 2013 Order dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. (hereinafter "Defendant").

On December 12, 2009, CitiMortgage foreclosed on Plaintiff's property in Hartley. Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against a lawyer involved in the foreclosure process asserting fraud and other causes of action; this Court subsequently dismissed Plaintiff's complaint. On February 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed another pro se complaint against Defendant, alleging similar causes of action. With leave from this Court, Plaintiff amended his complaint to include claims of embezzlement, identity theft, forgery, and fraud against Defendant.

On November 19, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6). By Order dated December 13, 2013 this Court granted Defendant's motion on the following grounds: embezzlement, identity theft and forgery are criminal charges, not civil causes of action; Plaintiff failed to allege fraud with particularity pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 9(b); and Plaintiff's fraud claim was time barred pursuant to the applicable statute of limitations.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reargument on December 20, 2013. As with his other filings, Plaintiff has filed the motion pro se. As can best be gleaned from the motion, Plaintiff appears to provide greater detail for his fraud allegations. Plaintiff argues that he was a "victum [sic] of fraud at the wrong place at the wrong time. . . ." Plaintiff has provided documents in support of his claims. Defendant has not filed a response to the motion.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to Civil Rule 59(e), a party may file a motion for reargument within five days after the filing of the Court's opinion or decision.[1] The motion will be granted only if "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."[2] A motion for reargument is not an opportunity for a party to rehash arguments already decided by the Court or to present new arguments not previously raised.[3] In order for the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.