Chidester, et al. v. Pratt, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY DENNIS CHIDESTER and KATHLEEN CHIDESTER, individually and as CoAdministrators of the Estate of BRETT M. CHIDESTER, Plaintiffs, v. FIONA PRATT, PRIORITY PLACEMENT WORLDWIDE, INC., a foreign corporation, CURTIS S. HOLFELD, HANA RYU, EXPERIENCE ALTERNATIVES, INC., and HERBAL LIFE AND ESSENCE CO., a foreign corporation, ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 07C-08-016 MMJ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. Submitted: December 22, 2011 Decided: January 17, 2011 On Defendant Priority Placement Worldwide, Inc. s Motion for Reargument of Motion to Dismiss DENIED ORDER Gary S. Nitsche, Esquire, Weik, Nitsche & Dougherty, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Charles J. Brown, III, Esquire, Archer & Greiner, P.C., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Priority Placement Worldwide, Inc. and Curtis S. Holfeld JOHNSTON, J. 1. The Court heard oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by defendants Priority Placement Worldwide, Inc. and Curtis S. Holfeld. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court granted Curtis S. Holfeld s motion to dismiss, and denied Priority Placement Worldwide, Inc. s motion to dismiss, for the reasons set forth on the record. 2. Defendant Priority Placement Worldwide, Inc. has moved for reargument. Priority Placement asserts that the forum selection clause should be enforced and this matter transferred to the courts of British Colombia. In support of its argument, Priority Placement cites Ashall Homes Ltd. v. ROK Entertainment Group, Inc., 992 A.2d 1239 (Del. Ch. 2010). The Court has reviewed Ashall and finds it to be distinguishable. 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 1 Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (1969). 1 decision. A motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the court. 2 3. The Court has reviewed and considered this motion. The Court finds that it did not 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 Priority Placement Worldwide, Inc. s Motion for Reargument of Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. _________________________________ The Honorable Mary M. Johnston 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). 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.