OPINION JURDEN, J. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is Defendant Christina School District's Motion for Summary Judgment. Jamon Smith ("Plaintiff"), through his mother, Cymondria Smith, filed this suit against Defendant alleging that Defendant and its staff were negligent in their supervision of Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered an injury to his finger while riding a tricycle at school. Defendant argues that the Delaware State Tort Claims Act ("DSTCA") provides Defendant sovereign immunity from...
OPINION JURDEN, J. I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is Defendant Michael D. Holden's Motion to Suppress evidence seized during a search of his residence. 1 After an investigation spanning several months, the Wilmington Police obtained a search warrant to search Holden's home. The search produced empty pill bottles, a scale, a mixing agent for cocaine, prescription pills, and two ounces of cocaine. 2 Holden was subsequently arrested and indicted for Trafficking in Cocaine of greater...
JAN R. JURDEN, Judge. INTRODUCTION This litigation arises out of the alleged unlawful dumping of toxic waste in the Dominican Republic by The AES Corporation ("AES") and four of its wholly owned subsidiaries, AES Atlantis, Inc.; AES Puerto Rico, LP; AES Puerto Rico, Inc.; and AES Puerto Rico Services, Inc. (collectively "Defendants"). On November 4, 2009, several residents of the Dominican Republic initiated an action (the "Pallano Action") against Defendants, alleging that their conduct...
PEGGY L. ABLEMAN, Judge. I. Introduction Plaintiffs Jason and Domonie Bochniak contracted with Defendant Blenheim at Bay Pointe, LLC ("Blenheim") for the construction of a new home, which was completed in 2004. After the Bochniaks experienced recurring problems with water leaks and moisture in the house, they filed suit against Blenheim. The Bochniaks allege that Blenheim did not satisfy an express warranty of good workmanship contained in their sales agreement, and that Blenheim...
RICHARD R. COOCH, J. Dear Counsel: INTRODUCTION Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment presents a discrete issue of statutory and rule interpretation. Plaintiff contends that that Defendant exceeded its statutorily defined discretion when it determined that only the historically unrepresented employees (i.e., employees who were never part of any existing collective bargaining agreements) were eligible to vote for a collective bargaining representative. As a result, of 1,636 merit employees,...
SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN OPINION STREETT, Judge. The present matter is before the Court on remand from the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware with instructions to explicitly express, in a written supplemental opinion, the Court's reasons for granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs (Appellees) following oral argument and a bench ruling on June 9, 2010. At that ruling, the Court held that the provisions of a contract between the parties were unambiguous and that Plaintiffs'...
JAMES T. VAUGHN, President Judge. ORDER Upon consideration of defendant Anita Gibbs' Appeal from a Commissioner's Final Judgment, the plaintiff's opposition, and the record of the case, it appears that: 1. On September 20, 2010, a Commissioner issued a final order granting a writ of replevin to the plaintiff, Green Tree Servicing, LLC, for a mobile home. The defendant failed to appear at the hearing. Testimony was taken from a representative of the plaintiff. 2. Superior Court Civil Rule...
MEMORANDUM OPINION. SLIGHTS, J. I. In this opinion, the Court considers whether the plaintiff, Allen Family Foods, Inc. ("Allen"), has stated a viable claim for tortious interference with contract against defendant, Capitol Carbonic Corporation ("Capitol"). Capitol has moved to dismiss the claim (Count II of the Amended Complaint) pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) on the ground that Delaware law does not recognize tortious interference with contract as alleged by Allen....
SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN OPINION STREETT, Judge. The present matter is before the Court on remand from the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware with instructions to explicitly express, in a written supplemental opinion, the Court's reasons for granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs (Appellees) following oral argument and a bench ruling on June 9, 2010. At that ruling, the Court held that the provisions of a contract between the parties were unambiguous and that Plaintiffs'...
