Preview:

SUPERIOR  COURT
OF  THE
STATE  OF  DELAWARE
JEROME  O. HERLIHY                                                                      DANIEL  L. HERRMANN
JUDGE                                                                                   COURT  HOUSE
                                                                                        WILMINGTON, DE        19801-3353
Submitted:   August 20, 2001
Decided:   August 30, 2001
Francis G. X. Pileggi, Esq.
Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, LLP
919 North Market Street, Suite 1400
Wilmington, DE   19801-3046
Paul M. Lukoff, Esq.
Prickett, Jones & Elliott
P. O. Box 1328
Wilmington, DE   19899
RE:   Manley v. Associates in obstetrics & Gynecology, P.A., et al.
C.A.No. 00C-06-049-JOH
Defendants’ Motion for Reargument and Clarification - DENIED
Counsel:
Defendants have moved to reargue this Court’s July 27, 2001 decision
ruling on a number of their motions.  There were six.  The defendants seek to reargue
this Court’s decision concerning civil conspiracy and the applicability of the Wage
Payment and Collection Act.
The basis for their motion, as it relates to the decision on civil conspiracy,
is a repeat of their original argument. They offer nothing new.   The Court will not
consider reargument which is only a rehash of earlier arguments.1    The Court,
therefore, sees no reason to change its earlier ruling on this subject.
1Miles, Inc., v. Cookson America, Inc., Del.Ch., 677 A.2d 505, 506 (1995).




Manley v. Associates in obstetrics & Gynecology, P.A., et al.
C.A.No. 00C-06-049-JOH
Page No. Two
The defendants seek reargument on the Wage Payment and Collection
Act.2    Most of what they now contend was argued and considered before.    The
defendants then and now dispute whether the payments owed to plaintiff Dr. Manley
are compensation due her within the provisions of that Act.  Again, the Court will not
consider trod-over arguments.   Since the Court decided the payments due her fall
within the provisions of the Act, the remedial relief provisions are triggered.   That is
all the Court decided.   Whatever is the remedial amount due is to be sorted out later.
But, the defendants argue that there are inconsistencies between that
portion of the opinion holding the Act’s provisions applied and what it said in its
“Conclusion”  section.    The  defendants  moved  to  have  this  Court  hold  the  Act
inapplicable.   That motion was denied.   This Court held, as part of ruling on the
parties’ six motions, that Dr. Manley was owed $145,000.  It is this sum of money which
the defendants argued was not encompassed within any part of the Act.   But, the
defendants have know paid it.  Dr. Manley had to file this suit to get it.  Whatever label
is used, the money due is included within the Act, thus, triggering the relief portions of
the Act.   The Court sees nothing inconsistent in its earlier decision.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the defendants motion for reargument and
clarification is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
JOH/bsb
Enclosure
Original to Prothonotary
219 Del.C. §1101, et seq.

Download 15640.pdf

Delaware Law