Blevins v. Metzgar, N16C-06-061 EMD

Plaintiffs Dennis and Diane Blevins allege defendants Hope and Robert Metzgar removed trees from the Blevins' property; the Metzgars have admitted removal.
Plaintiffs proffered expert Russell Carlson to value damages using a "restoration" plan characterized as restoration/replacement cost.
The court denied the Metzgars' Daubert motion to exclude Carlson (Daubert Order) and denied the Metzgars' summary judgment motion on certain claims (Summary Judgment Opinion).
The Metzgars filed two Rule 59(e) motions for reargument (Daubert Reargument Motion and Summary Judgment Reargument Motion), raising new arguments not previously presented (e.g., strict statutory construction limiting damages, asserting Trespass Quare Clausum Fregit as the sole remedy).
The court applied the Rule 59(e) standard, found no overlooked precedent or misapprehension of law/fact, held the new arguments could have been raised earlier and are resolvable at/near trial, and denied both reargument motions.
The court permitted Carlson to testify, treating his "restoration plan" as effectively a replacement-cost valuation for timber trespass damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Carlson should be excluded under Daubert	Carlson's restoration valuation is an appropriate damages methodology	Carlson's method is improper (not replacement or before-and-after) and should be excluded	Denied — court finds Carlson's restoration plan is acceptable and admissible
Whether Trespass to Chattels and Conversion are available remedies for unlawful tree removal	Blevins contends chattels/conversion and statutory remedies apply to tree removal	Metzgars argue trees are real property so chattels/conversion claims aren't available	Denied — court upheld availability of Trespass to Chattels and Conversion as pleaded
Whether trees being real property precludes chattels/conversion claims	Blevins maintains statutory and common-law remedies allow damages for removed trees	Metzgars assert trees constitute real property and only real-property remedies apply	Denied — court rejected that argument as a bar at this stage; factual/remedial issues remain for trial
Whether Rule 59(e) reargument is warranted	Blevins implicitly argues prior rulings were correct and not overlooked	Metzgars claim court misapplied law and advance new legal theories warranting reconsideration	Denied — court found no overlooked controlling precedent, new arguments improperly raised, and no basis to alter prior orders

Gannett Co. v. Bd. of Managers of the Del. Crim. Justice Info. Sys., 840 A.2d 1232 (Del. 2003) (discussed in context of standards limiting reargument and improper raising of new issues)