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.

Falciani v. Zinszer

Superior Court of Delaware

December 9, 2019

RUDOLPH FALCIANI, Plaintiff,
v.
ELIZABETH V. ZINSZER, SHERREE J. BEDELL, and STEPHEN ZINSZER, Defendants.

          Submitted: December 5, 2019

         Upon Plaintiff Rudolph Falciani's Motion for Reargument

          Denied. Douglas A. Shachtman, Esquire, The Shachtman Law Firm, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiff.

          Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Esquire, Donald L. Gouge, Jr. LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendants.

          Calvin L. Scott, Jr. Judge

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Rudolph Falciani's Motion for Reargument brought pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs motion is DENIED.

         Background

         On October 29, 2019, this Court issued a Decision after Bench Trial in the matter of Rudolph Falciani ("Plaintiff) vs. Elizabeth Zinszer, Sherree J. Bedell, and Stephen Zinszer ("Defendants"). The Court issued a verdict partially for Plaintiff and partially for Defendants, [1] finding that Plaintiff breached an oral contract for the sale of land located at 34282 Central Avenue, Frankford, Delaware ("Property").[2]Despite his breach, Plaintiff was awarded $30, 000 of his $188, 000 deposit as part of the Court's effort to avoid creating a windfall favoring Defendants.[3]

         Parties' Assertions

         Plaintiff filed a motion for reargument on November 5, 2019. Plaintiff argues that this Court's finding with respect to Defendants' expectation interest was materially incomplete and that this Court failed to address Plaintiffs argument that Defendants failed to prove or mitigate their damages. Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to the full refund of his deposit because of Defendants' alleged failure to prove or mitigate damages.

         Defendants filed their Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Re-Argument on December 5, 2019. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs motion rehashes Plaintiffs prior arguments and makes new arguments for the first time. Defendants explain that there was testimony before the Court about damages and about Ms. Zinzser's decision not to put the Property back on the market until the resolution of this lawsuit.

         Standard of Review

         On a Motion for Reargument under Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the only issue is whether the Court overlooked something that would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision.[4] Thus, the motion 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."[5] 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.[6] A party seeking to have the Court reconsider the earlier ruling must, "demonstrate newly ...


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.