RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.