In AFH Holding Advisory, LLC, et al. v. Emmaus Life Sciences, Inc., C.A. No. N12C-09-045-MMJ CCLD (Johnston, J.), the Delaware Superior Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reargument. The Court's decision in AFH Holding Advisory highlights the difficulty of prevailing on a Rule 59(e) motion to reargue. The decision can be read in its entirety here.

The Court had previously granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and granted-in-part and denied-in-part the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs moved for reargument under Rule 59(e), arguing that "the Court misapprehended four facts in a manner that . . . affected the outcome of the decision." (Opinion at 2.)

In response to the plaintiffs' arguments, the Court explained that "[a]ll four issues raised in the Motion for Reargument were fully considered by the Court in reaching its decision" and concluded that "[t]here is no basis upon which the Court should alter its opinion." (Id. at 4.) That is because "[t]he Court 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." (Id.) (emphasis added).

In reaching this conclusion, the Court reiterated the familiar standard for Rule 59(e) motions for reargument and explained that "a motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the court." (Id. at 3.)

As is clear from AFH Holding Advisory, it is difficult to prevail on a motion for reargument. Thus, when basing a Rule 59(e) motion on the Court's apparent misapprehension of facts, absent a convincing argument that the Court would have reached a different conclusion had it not misapprehended the facts, such a motion will not succeed.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.