David J. Branson, et al. v. Vincent Branson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

SAM GLASSCOCK III VICE CHANCELLOR COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE 34 THE CIRCLE GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947 January 31, 2013 Dean Campbell Law Office of Dean Campbell, LLC 401 N. Bedford Street P.O. Box 568 Georgetown, DE 19947 Re: David J. Weidman Sergovic, Carmean & Weidman, P.A. 142 E. Market Street P.O. Box 751 Georgetown, DE 19947 David J. Branson, et al. v. Vincent Branson Civil Action No. 7603-VCG Dear Counsel: I have before me Mr. Campbell s January 31, 2013 Motion for an Enlargement of Time to file a Motion for Reargument pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 59(f). Rule 59(f) requires a Motion for Reargument to be filed within 5 days after a decision.1 The stated rationale for Mr. Campbell s Motion for an Enlargement of Time is that he has been unable to file a Motion for Reargument because he has not yet received a transcript of the telephone conference held on January 24, 2013. A transcript is not required for counsel to file a Motion for Reargument. Therefore, the Motion for an Enlargement of Time is DENIED. 1 Ct. Ch. R. 59(f) ( A motion for reargument setting forth briefly and distinctly the grounds therefor may be served and filed within 5 days after the filing of the Court's opinion or the receipt of the Court's decision. ). However, I will treat the Motion for an Enlargement of time as a Motion for Reargument on those issues raised in paragraph 4 of the Motion.2 The parties should contact my chambers to schedule presentation of the Motion for Reargument. To the extent the foregoing requires an order to take effect, IT IS SO ORDERED. Sincerely, /s/ Sam Glasscock III Sam Glasscock III 2 Def. s Mot. for Enlarg. of Time ¶ 4 ( The Motion for Reargument is being filed to take exception to your Honor s holding that this matter is an in personam action and not [sic] in rem action, and the general dismissal of the Interpleader. Defendant will present both case law, and support from Pomeroy s Equity Jurisprudence to demonstrate why these holdings are legally incorrect and actually act to take this matter outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. ). 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.