JOHN R. TOEDTMAN, Plaintiff,
TURNPOINT MEDICAL DEVICES, INC., Defendant.
Submitted: February 6, 2019
Defendant TurnPoint Medical Devices, Inc.'s Motion for
Theodore A. Kittila, Esquire, and James G. McMillan, III,
Esquire, Halloran Farkas Kittila, LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Oras Morgan, Esquire, and Courtney A. Emerson, Esquire, Fox
Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for
Richard R. Cooch, R.J.
13th day of February, 2019, upon consideration of
Defendant's Motion for Reargument it appears to the Court
1. The parties in this matter filed Cross Motions for Summary
Judgment, asserting that there were no disputes of material
facts and that each was entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law. Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 56(h), the Court
treated the cross motions for summary judgment "to be
the equivalent of a stipulation for decision on the
merits[.]" Immaterial factual disputes would not
preclude a decision.Under this Rule 56(h) procedural framework,
the Court proceeded to "a decision on the merits [of the
case] based on the record submitted with the
motions." By decision dated January 23, 2019, the
Court determined that Defendant breached a valid employment
agreement when Defendant's Board of Directors attempted
to void Plaintiffs employment agreement. The Court found that
because of Defendant's breach, Defendant owed Plaintiff
$250, 900 based on the employment agreement's severance
provisions. Furthermore, the Court found that Plaintiff
established he could alternatively recover the sum owed under
the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
2. On January 30, 2019, Defendant filed a timely Motion for
Reargument of the Court's January 23 decision pursuant to
Rule 59(e). Plaintiff filed a timely response pursuant to
Rule 59(e). Defendant argues that the Court misapprehended
the law as to the question of delegation. Defendant further
contends that Court misapprehended various facts that were
material to the disposition of the issues of delegation,
fairness, and promissory estoppel. Plaintiff countered that
the Court's analysis of the law was supported by case
law, and that all factual findings were supported by the
record on summary judgment.
3. A motion for reargument is governed by Rule
59(e). A motion for reargument will be denied
unless "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
intended to rehash the arguments already decided by the
4. Defendant's contention that the Court misapprehended
certain aspects of the law is unavailing. Defendant maintains
that Delaware law does not allow the delegation which
occurred in this case. Defendant previously presented this
argument in its motion for summary judgment. Its
consideration would be an improper rehash of an argument
already decided upon. Rehash notwithstanding, Defendant does
not provide the Court with an overlooked controlling
precedent or legal principles which support Defendant's
assertion. Nor does Defendant demonstrate that the Court
misapprehended the law such that the outcome of the
underlying decision would have changed. Instead, Defendant
demonstrates that it disagrees with the Court's
conclusions of law which were unfavorable to Defendant's
position. This disagreement does not warrant reargument.
5. Defendant's contention that the Court misapprehended
certain facts critical to a disposition is likewise
unavailing. Defendant has continuously advocated for its own
unique interpretation of the facts of this case throughout
the underlying proceedings. After diligent review of the
record on summary judgment, the Court rejected a fair portion
of Defendant's interpretation of the record. Reargument
would only serve to rehash arguments already decided.
6. Defendant's arguments in the instant motion for
reargument were previously presented to the Court in its
cross motion for summary judgment, and rejected. Defendant
does not provide a controlling precedent or legal principle,
that the Court overlooked, which would warrant reargument.
Further, Defendant does not demonstrate a misapprehension of
the law or the facts which would have changed the outcome of
the underlying decision, and thus warrant reargument.
for the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for
Reargument is hereby DENIED.