Submitted: January 3, 2019
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument.
Denied. Mazen and Nina Shahin, pro se Plaintiffs.
William W. Pepper, Sr., Esquire of Schmittinger and
Rodriguez, P.A., Dover, Delaware; attorneys for Defendants.
William L. Witham. Jr. Resident Judge.
Court has before it Plaintiffs Dr. Mazen Shahin and Nina
Shahin's ("Plaintiffs") Motion for Reargument
pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule
("Rule") 59(e) and the City of Dover and Ms. Cheryl
Bundek's ("Defendants") response in opposition.
The Plaintiffs' request for reargument is based on the
Court's order of December 17, 2018, denying their
application for the appointment of counsel.
After considering the Plaintiffs' motion and status as
pro se litigants, and the Defendants' response in
opposition, the Court finds the motion for reargument
untimely and not in accordance with Rule 78. Therefore, the
motion is DENIED.
Court will not restate all facts and procedural history
presented in its previous order, but the Plaintiffs filed
their latest motion on December 27, 2018.
motion for reargument pursuant to Rule 59(e) 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." It is not an
opportunity to rehash arguments already decided by the Court
or to present new arguments not previously
Here, the Plaintiffs' motion for reargument is time
barred pursuant to Rule 59(e) and the rule is "crystal
clear." It states that a "motion for
reargument shall be served and filed within five days after
the filing of the Court's opinion or
Under Rule 6(b), the Superior Court "has divested itself
of the power to enlarge the time for a motion for
reargument." The computation of the five day time limit
for filing a motion for reargument under Rule 59(e) excludes
computation of Saturdays, Sundays, and Court
this case, the Court order that is subject to the
Plaintiffs' instant motion for reargument was issued on
Monday, December 17, 2018. Thus, the five day window during
which either party could file a motion for reargument began
to run on Tuesday, December 18, 2018. The Plaintiffs'
motion for reargument was not filed until December 27, 2018,
six days after this Court's December 17
8. As a
result, the Court lacks discretion, pursuant to Rule 6(b), to
enlarge the time requirement for filing a motion for
reargument. Therefore, Plaintiffs' untimely motion for
reargument is time barred pursuant to Rule 59(e).
Assuming arguendo that the Plaintiffs' motion for
reargument was filed timely, it would still exceed the six
page limitation imposed by this Court pursuant to Rule