Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Indentured Trustee for the Registered Holders of Saxon Asset Securities Trust 2006-1 Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Notes, Series 2006-1, Plaintiff(s),
Dozmitt Francis and Denilla A. Francis, Defendants.
Submitted: September 18, 2017
Defendants' "Appeal to Order":
Melanie J. Thompson, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff
Dozmitt Francis, pro se Defendant
Denilia A. Francis, pro se Defendant
Jurden President Judge
NOW TO WIT, this 6th day of February, 2018, the
Court having duly considered Dozmitt Francis and Denilla
Francis' (collectively the "Defendants")
pro se "Appeal to Order,
" which constitutes a Motion for Reargument
pursuant to Rule 59(e) (the "Motion"); and Deutsche
Bank Trust Company Americas' ("Deutsche")
response thereto, IT APPEARS THAT:
letter dated August 21, 2017, the Defendants were noticed to
"a hearing scheduled for September 15, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.
for Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment." The
Defendants did not appear at that hearing.
the September 15, 2017 hearing, the Court granted summary
judgment in favor of Deutsche and entered Judgment against
the Defendants in the amount of $262, 258.41
Defendants argue that they are entitled to reargument
Defendant made special appearance due to construction on
roads. Defendant parked on 13ltl Street and walked
to Court. Defendant has pending Federal Court case filed with
the United States District Court for the District of
Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e), a motion for
reargument 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." A motion for reargument is not an
opportunity for a party to rehash the arguments already
decided by the Court or to present new arguments not
previously raised. "'A party seeking to have the
Court reconsider the earlier ruling must demonstrate newly
discovered evidence, a change in the law, or manifest
injustice." Delaware law places a heavy burden on a
party seeking relief pursuant to Rule 59.
Court finds that the Defendants have failed to establish that
the Court has overlooked a controlling precedent or legal
principles, or that the Court has misapprehended the law or
facts such as would have changed the outcome of the
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants'
September 18, 2017 ...