Martineza v. Towne Estates Condominium Owners Association Inc. et al

Filing 199

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying 193 Letter/MOTION for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 7/2/2014. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LISA ANN MARTINEZA,

Plaintiff,

v.
Civil Action No. 1: 12-cv-779-RGA
TOWNE ESTATES CONDOMINIUM
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al,

Defendants.

TERRANCE BOWMAN and JANELLE N.
STEVENSON,

Third-Party Plaintiffs,
V.

PETTINARO CONSTRUCTION CO., et al
Third-Party Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Having considered all the papers and argument submitted regarding the Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's May 28, 2014 Memorandum Opinion (D.I. 193) and the response
(D.I. 194), the Court DENIES the Motion.
The Bowman Defendants request reconsideration on two grounds. First, that the
Memorandum Opinion incorrectly granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of the
Home Inspector Defendants, despite the Home Inspector Defendants not bringing a motion
against the Bowman Defendants. Second, that the Court improperly denied the Bowman
Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of breach of duty to the Plaintiff. The
Court will take these two issues in turn.
1

The Court disagrees with the Bowman Defendants and finds there was a ripe motion for
summary judgment in front of the Court regarding the Home Inspector Defendants. The final
paragraph of the Home Inspector Defendants' brief reads, "The [Home Inspector Defendants]
also join the motions for summary judgment filed by the Pettinaro and Bowman defendants, and
adopt their statement of facts to the extent pertinent here." (D.I. 136 at 4). Additionally, it was
clear at the time of the oral argument that the Home Inspector Defendants were seeking a motion
for summary judgment against the Bowman Defendants. (D .I. 189 at 109 ("I have joined in
actually all three of the defense briefs and motions. But I've obviously joined in [Pettinaro's]
motion to get out of this case as well as another third-party defendant for pretty much the same
grounds."). The Bowman Defendants' motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Turning to the Bowman Defendants' second argument. Delaware Local Rule 7.1.5
allows for parties to file a motion for re-argument within 14 days after the court issues its
opinion or decision. A court should grant such a motion when "[t]he Court has patently
misunderstood a party or made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension." Oglesby v. Penn

Mut. Life Ins. Co., 877 F. Supp. 872, 892 (D. Del. 1994), aff'd on other grounds 127 F.3d 1096
(3d Cir. 1997). Motions for re-argument should be granted sparingly and parties should not be
permitted to use them simply to relitigate matters that have already been addressed by the Court.

Id. Here, the Bowman Defendants have simply re-hashed arguments that were either made to the
court, or could have been made to the Court. Therefore, the Bowman Defendants' motion for reargument concerning their duty to the Plaintiff is DENIED.
Entered this

~

of July, 2014.

2