Submitted: August 5, 2014
On Defendant's Motion for New Trial DENIED.
On Defendant's Motion to Extend, Vacate, Stay, Dismiss Order of Judgement [sic] by Matter of Law to Superior Court Civil Rule 50(1), and as to Plaintiff's Count VII – Granted by Judge Charles H. Toliver, IV. on October 17, 2013 DENIED.
Ferris W. Wharton, Judge
This 27th day of October, 2014, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for a New Trial, Plaintiff's Response in Opposition, the Delaware Supreme Court's Order dated September 22, 2014 and Defendant's Motion to Extend, Vacate, Stay, Dismiss Order of Judgement [sic] by Matter of Law to Superior Court Civil Rule 50(1), and as to Plaintiff's Count VII – Granted by Judge Charles H. Toliver, IV. on October 17, 2013 (hereinafter "Motion to Vacate"), it appears to the Court that:
(1) At the core of this litigation are several agreements made between Plaintiff and Defendant Morgan whereby Plaintiff loaned Defendant Morgan money to operate several businesses with the expectation of repayment on the loans including interest. Trial in this matter occurred on September 23-25, 2013. Before the case was submitted to the jury, Plaintiff moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law which the Court granted from the bench. The Court then issued a written Order on October 17, 2013 requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiff the amount of money necessary to return the parties to their status quo prior to the loans.
(2) On October 29, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion for New Trial "for purpose of due process of law" asserting three grounds:
1. Without presence of Jury, Plaintiff, Defendant, Judge concluded jury trial preceding closing arguments, issuing rule as a matter of law pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 50(1), and Plaintiff's Count VII – Pltf's claim of rescission based on mutual mistake of the parties. Rescission could only bring Defendant back to settlement of C.A. 6495, Delaware Court of Chancery.
2. Direct relation of C.A. 6495 known to Judge Toliver.
3. Lack of Discovery, trial witness supoenas [sic], known to Judge Toliver. Judge Toliver permitted Plaintiff's first counsel to withdraw halfway through process, then denied Defendant full discovery production and witness supoenas [sic].
(3) In response to the Motion, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's motion is vague and ambiguous and, therefore, does not comply with the particularity requirements of Super. Ct. Civ. R. 7(b). Plaintiff argues that if Defendant's Motion seeks a new trial pursuant to Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(a), it is precluded because the case had not been tried when the Court ruled as a matter of law. Plaintiff asserts that the substance f Defendant's Motion is that of a Motion for Reargument of the Judgment as a Matter of Law Motion pursuant to Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e). Plaintiff argues that the Motion is time-barred because it was filed seven business days after the entry of the Court's Order. Should the Court deem the Motion timely filed, Plaintiff submits that the Motion "should still fail as it is a transparent attempt to rehash arguments already decided by this Court."
(4) On December 31, 2013, Defendants appealed the Court's October 17, 2013 Order granting Judgment as a Matter of Law to the Delaware Supreme Court. On January 10, 2014, Defendant filed the Motion to Vacate in which Defendant "move[d] the court for a dismissal" and stated the following assertions in support thereof:
1) Office of Sheriff, West Chester, PA served notice to Defendant of scheduled sheriff sale of Defendant's personal property on January ...