Delaware Court Denies Green's Post-Trial Motions

SUPERIOR COU RT OF THE STATE OF DELA WARE MEGHAN A. ADA MS J UDGE L EONARD L. W ILLIAMS J USTICE C ENTER 500 N. K ING S TREET, S UITE 10 400 W ILMING TON, D ELAWARE 19801 (302) 255- 0634 February 18, 202 6 RE: Mortgage Conne ct Document Solut ions, LLC v. Green Industrial Development G roup, LLC, C.A. N o. N2 3C- 01 -178 MAA CC LD De ar C o uns e l: The Court has review ed the parties’ submissions regarding Defendant Green Industrial Developm ent Group, LLC’s (“Green”) post -trial letter 1 regarding open issues and Green’ s M otion for Reargume nt, or in the Alter native, to Alter or Amend the Judgemen t. 2 Both of Green’s req uests are denied. First, Green argu es the Court ruled inconsi stently regardi ng Green’s exc luded brokerage commissions. 3 Plaintiff Mortgage Connect Document Solutions, LLC (“MCDS”) correctly p oints out that the Court, in its Post-Trial Memorandum Opinion, held that commissions paid to Cushman & Wakefield were recoverab le 1 D.I. 177 [“Post - Trial Letter”]. 2 D.I. 178 [“Motion for Reargument ”]. 3 Post-Trial Letter at 1-2. Andrew D. Cor do, Esquire Wilson Sonsin i Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. 222 Delaware A venue Suite 800 Wilmington, D elaware 198 01 Katharine L. Mowery, Esquire Gabriela Z. Mo nasterio, Esquire Richards La yton & Finger PA One Rodney Sq uare 920 North K ing Street Wilmington, D elaware 198 01

Mortgage C onn ect D ocument Solutions, L LC v. Green Industri al Development Gro up N23C- 01 -178 M AA CCLD February 18, 2 026 Page 2 of 4 pursuant to Lease Section 2 3.1, but that the commissions were already baked in to lost rent. 4 Thus, to award lease commissio ns as a separate line e xpense for damag es would amount to double-counting. Second, MCDS’s M otion for Reargument is denied. Green’s Motion for Reargument centers on o ne issue: “whether the Tenant Improvement Allowanc e addressed in the Court’s January 20, 2026 Post Trial Memorandum Opinion... should offset Green’s damages.” 5 Green reques ts either reargument on the issue or for the Court to “open the ju dgment to allow a dditional test imony.” 6 Motions for reargument are governed by Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e). “The moving par ty faces a heavy burde n on a motion for reargume nt.” 7 A motion for rearg ument “will be granted ‘only if the Cour t has overlooke d a controlling precedent or l egal princ iples, or the Court has misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision.’ ” 8 “A motion for reconsideratio n or rearg ument is not an opportunit y t o rehash 4 D.I. 179, MCDS Letter dated February 3, 2026 a t 2. Green and MCDS agree that prejudgment interest should be calculated pursua nt to Colorado Revised Statute § 5-12-102(1). Id. at 2; Post- Trial Letter at 2. 5 Motion for Reargument at 1-2. 6 Id. at 1. 7 Long v. Johnson & Johnson Servs., Inc., 2020 WL 2850205, at *1 (Del. Super. June 2, 2020). 8 Snipe v. Boulden Servs., LLC, 2024 WL 550095, at *1 (Del. Super. Feb. 8, 2024) (quoting Stat e v. Brinkley, 132 A.3d 839, 842 (Del. Super. 2016)).

Mortgage C onn ect D ocument Solutions, L LC v. Green Industri al Development Gro up N23C- 01 -178 M AA CCLD February 18, 2 026 Page 3 of 4 arguments already decided by the Court, or t o present new arguments that were not previously raised.” 9 Rule 59(a) p rovide s that after a bench trial, “the Court may open the judgme nt, take addit ional testim ony, amend fin dings of fact a nd conclusions of law o r make new fi ndings and conclusions, and direct the entry of a new judgmen t.” 10 Green’s Motion for Rearg ument presents neither overlooke d applicable law nor new e vidence. Essentially, Gree n wishes to have a seco nd bite of the apple at an alread y- briefed a nd dec ided issue: “by not having t o pay for MCDS’s buildout, Green is saving $1,232, 864.” 11 Thus, “[u]nder Green’s own expectati on damage s theory, to p ut Gr een back i n the same position without a br each, including this amount would be double r ecovery.” 12 The Court notes again, as it did in the Po st - Trial M emorandum Opinion, that Green did not dispute t his deduction in either it s Reply Brief or post -trial oral argument. 13 If Green d isagrees with the Court’s finding, its reme d y is to ap peal to the S upreme Cour t of Delaware. 9 T IBCO Software Inc. v. NThrive Revenue Sys., LLC, 2020 WL 86829, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 6, 2020) (cleaned up). 10 Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(a). 11 D.I. 176 [“ Post-Trial Memorandum Opinion ”] at 39. 12 Id. at 40. 13 Id. at 40 n.231.

Mortgage C onn ect D ocument Solutions, L LC v. Green Industri al Development Gro up N23C- 01 -178 M AA CCLD February 18, 2 026 Page 4 of 4 Green’s re quest purs uant to R u le 59(a) is sim ilarly deni ed. Othe r tha n providing the standard fo r Rule 59(a), Green cites to no authority to support this remedy and certainly d oes not raise any reasons t hat would raise to the level of “manifest injustice.” 14 Th u s, Green’s request t o ope n the judgment to permit additional te stimony on the issue is den ied. IT IS SO ORDE RED. Sincerely, /s/ Meghan A. Ad ams _______________ _______ Meghan A. Adams, J udge cc: All Counsel via F il e and Ser ve MAA/ls 14 Zutrau v. Jansing, 2014 WL 6901461, at *2 (Del. Ch. Dec. 8, 2014) (citations omitted).