 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Karman v. Board of Adjustment of Sussex County4/26/2005
for over two years. As the Delaware Supreme Court stated in Bachtle v. Bachtle, 494 A.2d 1253, 1256 (Del. 1985), " here must be an end to litigation."
3. Unreasonable Delay
In Schremp v. Marvel, 405 A.2d 119, 120 (Del. 1979), the Supreme Court observed that a movant has an obligation to act without unreasonable delay when making a motion to vacate default judgment. The Schremp Court measured reasonableness by comparing the amount of time that had passed (i.e., time of defaulting party's actual knowledge of dismissal to time of filing of motion) to the inflexible time for appealing adverse judgment (thirty days), moving for a new trial (ten days) or reargument (five days). 405 A.2d at 121 (finding motion to vacate default judgment untimely when the plaintiff filed two months after learning of dismissal of case). In McMartin v. Quinn, 2004 WL 249576, it was determined that the Defendant did not act with unreasonable delay, when the Motion for to Vacate Default Judgment was filed within thirty days from when she received notice of the default judgment.
In Nanticoke Mem'l Hosp., the Court reopened the case when the Plaintiff made the motion to reopen almost three years after it had originally been dismissed. It seemed to have been swayed by the fact that there would be no prejudice to the defenses of the doctor and the hospital allegedly responsible for the wrongful death. Other Delaware Courts have also opened cases after a considerable delay. See, e.g., Scureman v. Judge, 1998 WL 409153 (Del. Ch.) (reopening case after five year delay when Court had been induced to make an erroneous conclusion of fact by the parties). In Young, 2001 WL 880128, however, the Court refused to reopen the case when two and a half years had passed from the date the case had been dismissed to the time the motion to reopen was filed.
In Christina Bd. of Educ., at *7, the Court noted that "although an unreasonable delay can sometimes serve to bar a motion to vacate, it can also rise to the level of extraordinary circumstances justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6)." There, the Court did not further consider the issue because attorney negligence had not been raised and it did not want to determine the issue sua sponte. In this case, however, the attorney's actions were not grossly negligent. Therefore, the Court finds there was an unreasonable delay before the Motion to Re-open was filed.
Karman waited over two years from the date this case was dismissed before she filed the Motion to Re-open. She has given no adequate justification for allowing such a considerable period of time to pass. Karman states that her lawyer did tell her he would take care of it when she first discovered the case had been dismissed, but two years passed and there was no evidence presented that any more discussions were had about the case. There is no indication that she was not aware that the case was not proceeding during those two years.
CONCLUSION
Considering the foregoing, Karman's Motion to Re-open is denied. Solsnes also requests attorneys' fees for having to defend a baseless motion. However, the motion was grounded in law and neither frivolous nor baseless. Attorneys' fees are not awarded.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|