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.

Elia v. Hertrich Family of Automobile Dealerships, Inc.

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent

March 4, 2014

ASHLEY N. (REECE) ELIA, Plaintiff,
v.
HERTRICH FAMILY OF AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS, INC. d/b/a HERTRICH'S CAPITOL, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant.

Submitted: January 2, 2014

Upon Consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Grant of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

Christopher J. Curtin, Esquire, MacElree Harvey, LTD, Centreville, Delaware for Plaintiff.

Danielle K. Yearick, Esquire, Tybout, Redfearn & Pell, Wilmington, Delaware for Defendant. Young, J.

ORDER

Robert B. Young J.

SUMMARY

Ashley N. (Reece) Elia ("Plaintiff") moves for reconsideration of the Court's grant of Hertrich Family of Auto Dealerships' ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss. This matter arises out of the sale of a motor vehicle ("Automobile") between Plaintiff and Defendant on September 16, 2010. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss presents the issue of whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, where Plaintiff agreed to a binding arbitration agreement in a Retail Installment Sales Contract ("RISC"), as part of her motor vehicle purchase from Defendant. On December 13, 2013, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.

In the Court's Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint ("the Order"), the Court held that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in issue that are covered by a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement entered into by the parties. In addition, the Court held that the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act's ("MMWA") "single document rule" does not apply to this matter, because Plaintiff's claims do not involve defects in the Automobile that Defendant failed to repair. For the reasons respectively set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

The facts regarding this matter are contained in the Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint on December 13, 2013, and are incorporated herein.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard for reargument under Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) is well settled.

On a motion for reargument, the only issue is whether the court overlooked something that would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision. The Court will generally deny the motion unless a party demonstrates that the Court has overlooked a controlling precedent or principle of law, or unless the Court has misapprehended the law or facts in a manner that affects the outcome of the decision. A ...

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.