SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
JOSEPH R. SLIGHTS, III
JUDGE
NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
500 NORTH KING STREET
Suite 10400
W ILMINGTON, DE 19801
PHONE : (302) 255-0656
FACSIMILE: (302) 255-2274
July 12, 2010
Robert Goldberg, Esquire
Biggs & Battaglia
921 North Orange Street
P.O. Box 1489
Wilmington, DE 19899-1489
David R. Hackett, Esquire
Griffin & Hackett, P.A.
116 West Market Street
P.O. Box 612
Georgetown, DE 19947
Re:
Yatco v. Nanticoke Memorial Hospital, Inc.
C.A. No.08C-12-038 JRS
Dear Counsel:
As you know, the Court has received two letters from Eduardo C. Yatco, M.D.,
the plaintiff in the above-referenced matter, the first dated June 17, 2010 and the
second dated June 28, 2010. In both letters, Dr. Yatco urges the Court to reconsider
its decision dated June 10, 2010, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
To the extent Dr. Yatco intended his letters to make formal motions for re-argument,
the motions must be DENIED.1
As stated, the Court’s opinion was issued on June 10, 2010. Accordingly,
pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e), any motion for re-argument
1
The Court does not typically entertain motions or other applications made directly by
represented parties. In this case, however, the Court will address Dr. Yatco’s letters so that the
record can show that this matter is now formally closed.
1
of that decision was required to be filed within five days after the filing of the Court’s
opinion. Pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 6(a), intervening weekends
and holidays would not be counted in calculating the five-day deadline because the
deadline was less than eleven days. Any motion for re-argument was required to be
filed, therefore, on or before June 17, 2010. While Dr. Yatco’s letter was dated June
17, 2010, it was not filed and docketed with the Court until June 21, 2010.
Consequently, the letter, to the extent it was intended to be a motion for re-argument,
was not timely filed.2 Needless to say, Dr. Yatco’s letter, dated June 28, 2010,
likewise is not a timely filed motion for re-argument.
Based on the foregoing, Dr. Yatco’s request for re-argument of the Court’s
June 10, 2010, decision granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
Joseph R. Slights, III
Original to Prothonotary
cc:
Eduardo C. Yatco, M.D.
2
See Wilmington Trust Co. v. Thielemann, 2002 Del. Super. LEXIS 511 (Dec. 17,
2002)(noting that a letter mailed directly to the Court by a pro se defendant but not received by the
Court until after the filing deadline could not be construed as a timely filed motion for reargument).
2
