RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation

CourtCourt of Chancery of Delaware
DecidedMay 7, 2020
DocketCA No. 2020-0161-SG
StatusPublished

This text of RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation (RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, (Del. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE SAM GLASSCOCK III STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE VICE CHANCELLOR 34 THE CIRCLE GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

May 7, 2020

Kevin R. Shannon, Esq. Rudolf Koch, Esq. Christopher N. Kelly, Esq. Kevin M. Gallagher, Esq. Daniel M. Rusk, Esq. Kevin M. Regan, Esq. POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER P.A. LLP One Rodney Square 1313 N. Market Street 920 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Wilmington, Delaware 19801

RE: RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation, et al. v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation et al., C.A. No. 2020-0161-SG

Dear Counsel:

I have Plaintiffs’ motion for reargument. The Plaintiffs have moved for

reargument of a scheduling order. A motion for reargument is appropriate in two

circumstances: where the court has “overlooked a decision or principle of law that

would have controlling effect or misapprehended the facts or the law so the outcome

of the decision would be different.” RE: Kratos Def. & Sec. Sols., Inc., v. Securitas

Elec. Sec., Inc., 2020 WL 1922000, at *1 (Del. Ch. Apr. 20, 2020) (quoting Pontone

v. Milso Indus. Corp., 2014 WL 4352341, at *1 (Del. Ch. Sept. 13, 2014)). Neither

of those circumstances is present here. Plaintiffs simply disagree with a matter

within the court’s discretion. Coleman v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, 902 A.2d 1102, 1107 (Del. 2006) (“It is well settled that the trial court has discretion to resolve

scheduling issues and to control its own docket.” (internal quotations omitted)).

Therefore, to the extent I consider the Plaintiffs’ motion a motion for reargument it

is denied.

I find it appropriate, however, to consider the Plaintiffs’ motion a motion for

reconsideration of scheduling, I have directed my Assistant to contact the parties to

schedule a teleconference promptly regarding moving this matter forward.

To the extent the foregoing requires an order to take effect, it is SO

ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Sam Glasscock III

Sam Glasscock III

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coleman v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLC
902 A.2d 1102 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roundpoint-mortgage-servicing-corporation-v-freedom-mortgage-corporation-delch-2020.