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.

Shahin v. City of Dover

Superior Court of Delaware

January 9, 2019

MAZEN AND NINA SHAHIN, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF DOVER and CHERYL A. BUNDEK, City of Dover Tax Assessor, Defendants.

          Submitted: January 3, 2019

         Upon 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.

          ORDER

          William L. Witham. Jr. Resident Judge.

         1. This 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)[1] 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.

         2. 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.

         3. The Court will not restate all facts and procedural history presented in its previous order,[2] but the Plaintiffs filed their latest motion on December 27, 2018.[3]

         4. A 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."[4] It is not an opportunity to rehash arguments already decided by the Court or to present new arguments not previously raised.[5]

         5. Here, the Plaintiffs' motion for reargument is time barred pursuant to Rule 59(e) and the rule is "crystal clear."[6] It states that a "motion for reargument shall be served and filed within five days after the filing of the Court's opinion or decision."[7]

         6. Under Rule 6(b), the Superior Court "has divested itself of the power to enlarge the time for a motion for reargument."[8] 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 holidays.[9]

         7. In 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 order.[10]

         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).

         9. 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 ...


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.