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.

Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Francis

Superior Court of Delaware

February 6, 2018

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),
v.
Dozmitt Francis and Denilla A. Francis, Defendants.

          Submitted: September 18, 2017

         Upon Defendants' "Appeal to Order": DENIED.

          Melanie J. Thompson, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff

          Dozmitt Francis, pro se Defendant

          Denilia A. Francis, pro se Defendant

          ORDER

          Jan R. Jurden President Judge

         AND 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, "[1] which constitutes a Motion for Reargument pursuant to Rule 59(e)[2] (the "Motion"); and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas' ("Deutsche") response[3] thereto, IT APPEARS THAT:

         1 By 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."[4] The Defendants did not appear at that hearing.[5]

         2. At 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[6]

         3. Defendants argue that they are entitled to reargument because:

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 Delaware.[7]

         4. 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."[8] 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.[9] "'A party seeking to have the Court reconsider the earlier ruling must demonstrate newly discovered evidence, a change in the law, or manifest injustice."[10] Delaware law places a heavy burden on a party seeking relief pursuant to Rule 59.[11]

         5. The 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 underlying decision.

         WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' September 18, 2017 ...


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.