In Re HCA, Inc. S’Holders Litig., (Del. Ch., Nov. 2006), read opinion here.

This letter opinion followed a letter opinion of Oct. 26, 2006 in which the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to expedite the proceedings and the court granted a stay in favor of a parallel Tennessee action due to considerations of comity and the necessities of judicial economy. The plaintiff requested reargument pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 59(f) on two bases: (1) An inadvertent factual error in the opinion of Oct. 26 and a legal issue affecting the timing of the filing of the plaintiffs’ motion. After careful consideration, the court denied the motion for reargument. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to meet the burden under Rule 59(f) that the court either “overlooked a decision or principle of law that would have a controlling affect on [the] decision . . . or demonstrate that it misapprehended law or facts in such a way that affected the outcome of the decision.” (citing Lane v. Cancer Treatment Center of America, Inc., 2000 WL 364208 (Del. Ch. ,Mar. 16, 2000)). The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden on both prerequisites for reargument.