Middletown Square Associates, LLC v. Jasinski.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY MIDDLETOWN SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LLC., a Delaware limited liability company, a subsidiary of Pettinaro Corporation, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT A JASINSKI, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. N10C-04-019 MMJ Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012 On Defendant Robert A. Jasinski s Motion for Reargument DENIED ORDER Gary A. Bryde, Esquire, Gary A. Bryde, P.A., Hockessin, DE 19707, Attorney for Plaintiff Robert A. Jasinski, Defendant, Pro Se, Bear, Delaware 19701 JOHNSTON, J. 1. By Memorandum Opinion dated December 4, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff Middletown Square Associates, LLC s Motion for Summary Judgment, and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. 2. Defendant Robert A. Jasinski has moved for reargument. Defendant asserts that the contract underlying the dispute is ambiguous. Therefore, the Court erred by failing to consider extrinsic evidence. 3. The purpose of moving for reargument is to seek reconsideration of findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment of law.1 Reargument usually will be denied unless the moving party demonstrates that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have a controlling effect, or that it has misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision. A motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the court. 2 4 The Court has reviewed and considered the parties submissions. The sole issue raised by Defendant in his Motion for Re-Argument was fully considered and addressed in the Court s December 4, 2012 decision. There is no basis upon which the Court should alter its opinion. Further, the Court did not 1 Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (1969). 2 Wilmington Trust Co. v. Nix, Del. Super., 2002 WL 356371, Witham, J. (Feb. 21, 2002); Whitsett v. Capital School District, Del. Super., C.A. No. 97C-04-032 Vaughn, J. (Jan. 28, 1999); Monsanto Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Del. Super., C.A. No. 88-JA-118, Ridgeley, P.J. (Jan. 14, 1994). 1 overlook a controlling precedent or legal principle, or misapprehend the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision. THEREFORE, Defendant s Motion for Reargument is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ M M Johnston ary . The Honorable Mary M. Johnston 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
