CHARLES W. WELCH, III JUDGE
CHARLES W. WELCH, III JUDGE Brian T. Murray, Esq.
Brian T. Murray, P.A.
903 S. College Avenue
Newark, DE 19713
Attorney for Defendant Donovan A. Sewell
Melissa M. Firlein
9703 Marlinton Lane
Port Richey, FL 34668
Pro se Plaintiffs Decision on Plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument Dear Mr. Murray, Mr. Sewell and Ms. Firlein:
The Court is in receipt of the plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument that was filed on March 18, 2016, for the above-referenced matter. The motion was filed pursuant to Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 59(e). After a careful review of the plaintiffs' motion by the Court, the motion is DENIED because it was untimely filed.
As you are aware, on March 8, 2016, the Court entered an Order denying the defendant's Motion to Dismiss because the plaintiffs sufficiently pled a claim for fraud. Within the same Order, the Court also dismissed, without prejudice, the plaintiffs' unlawful ouster claim because the plaintiffs' Complaint failed to state a claim for unlawful ouster.
On March 18, 2016, the plaintiffs' filed this Motion for Reargument requesting that the Court reconsider its Order dismissing the plaintiffs' unlawful ouster claim.
In the instant case, the Court is unable to consider the plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument because it was untimely filed. A motion for reargument is governed by Rule 59(e), which states, in pertinent part, "[a] motion for reargument shall be served and filed within 5 days after the filing of the Court's opinion or decision." In computing the 5-day deadline, according to Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 6(a), the day of the filing, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are excluded from the computation. The Court's Order was filed on March 8, 2016. Therefore, the plaintiffs had until March 15, 2016, to file their motion. Because the plaintiffs did not file their motion until March 18, 2015, the motion is untimely.
The Court is aware of the plaintiffs' status as self-represented litigants and their unfamiliarity with the Court's civil procedures. However, pursuant to Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 6(b), the Court has "divested itself of the power to enlarge the time [to file] a motion for reargument." Strong v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2013 WL 1228028, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 3, 2013). Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion must be denied.
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 59(e), the plaintiffs' motion for reargument was untimely filed. Therefore, the motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of May, 2016.
Sincerely,
/s/
Charles W. Welch, III CWW: mek