Issue Addressed: Whether the standard for a motion for reargument under Rule 59(f) was satisfied.
Short Answer: Only in part.
Brief Overview: This is one of those rare cases where a motion for reargument under Court of Chancery Rule 59(f) is granted, even if it was only granted in part. Another noteworthy aspect of this case is that it was a joint motion for both reconsideration under Rule 59(f), as well as a motion seeking certification of an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42. The latter motion for certification was denied. The limited portion of the motion for reconsideration that was granted was based, according to the Court, on “plaintiffs’ refusal to pursue the escrow claim in New York.” [in which a related case was pending.] The Court described that strategy as a rejection by the plaintiff of the suggestion by the Court that they pursue their escrow claim in New York where most of the claims were initially brought. This may be a useful opinion to consult when addressing a motion for reconsideration. [See prior case summary.]