Batchelor v. Alexis Properties, LLC ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    JANET BATCHELOR, )
    )
    ) C.A. No. K17C-11-001 NEP
    PLAINTIFF, ) In and For Kent County
    )
    v. )
    )
    ALEXIS PROPERTIES, LLC, )
    BB PROPERTIES OF DELAWARE, )
    LLC, JOHN WELCOME d/b/a )
    WELCOME HOME REALTY, and )
    LIVEINDE.COM, INC., )
    )
    DEFENDANTS. )
    Submitted: August 19, 2019
    Decided: August 26, 2019
    ORDER
    Upon Joint Motion for Sanctions of Defendants Alexis Properties, LLC, BB
    Properties of Delaware, LLC, Johns Welcome d/b/a Welcome Home Realty, and
    Liveinde.com, Inc.
    GRANTED
    Before the Court is the Joint Motion for Sanctions (hereinafter the “Joint
    Motion”) of Defendants Alexis Properties, LLC, BB Properties of Delaware,
    LLC, John Welcome d/b/a Welcome Home Realty, and Liveinde.com, Inc.
    (hereinafter, collectively, “Defendants”), against Plaintiff Janet Batchelor.’ In the
    ' Ms. Batchelor is self-represented.
    Joint Motion, Defendants seek the sanctions of dismissal and attorneys’ fees for
    Plaintiffs continued refusal to comply with discovery obligations and with the
    orders of this Court regarding those obligations.
    Factual and Procedural Background
    The Joint Motion is a culmination of a series of events resulting from
    Plaintiff's ongoing refusal to comply with her discovery obligations in this case.
    On March 14, 2019, the Court issued an order granting a motion to compel
    brought by Defendants Alexis Properties LLC, John Welcome d/b/a Welcome
    Home Realty, and Liveinde.com, Inc. (hereinafter, collectively, “Propounding
    Defendants”), and requiring Plaintiff to respond to Propounding Defendants’
    outstanding discovery requests by April 15, 2019. The Court’s order further
    provided that Plaintiff's failure to do so could result in sanctions, including but
    not limited to “adverse findings of fact and/or dismissal of Plaintiff's action.”
    Following Plaintiff's service of inadequate responses to the discovery
    requests, and her failure to respond to a motion for sanctions (hereinafter the
    “Previous Motion”) filed by Propounding Defendants or to appear at an oral
    argument on the Previous Motion, the Court, on June 5, 2019, granted in part and
    deferred in part the Previous Motion. Specifically, the Court imposed a monetary
    sanction upon Plaintiff--awarding $1,025.00 in attorneys’ fees to Propounding
    Defendants payable no later than 30 days from the date of the order--but deferred
    Propounding Defendants’ request for dismissal of Plaintiffs claims. The Court
    allowed Plaintiffan additional 30 days from the date of the order to serve adequate
    responses to the discovery requests, and authorized Propounding Defendants to
    renew their request for sanctions should Plaintiff fail to serve adequate responses
    to the discovery requests.
    Propounding Defendants, along with the remaining Defendant, BB
    Properties of Delaware, LLC, have now filed the Joint Motion on the basis that
    Plaintiff has failed to pay the sanction imposed by the Court or to serve revised
    discovery responses. Defendants seek dismissal with prejudice of Plaiintiff’s
    claims along with additional attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff was provided the
    Opportunity to respond to the Joint Motion, but she has failed to do so.
    Discussion
    In its June 5 order, this Court relied upon the Delaware Supreme Court’s
    decision in Hoag v. Amex Assurance Co.’ There, the Supreme Court noted that
    Superior Court Civil Rule 37(b)(2)(C) requires a showing of “wilfulness or
    conscious disregard of court-ordered discovery” before the sanction of dismissal
    is imposed, and further that dismissal is appropriate only “if no other sanction
    would be more appropriate under the circumstances.”?
    2 
    953 A.2d 713
    (Del. 2008).
    3 
    Id. at 717
    (quoting Holt v. Holt, 
    472 A.2d 820
    , 823 (Del. 1984).
    This Court did find, in its June 5 order, that Plaintiff's failure to provide
    adequate discovery responses, together with her failure to respond to the Previous
    Motion or to appear at the hearing on the Previous Motion, evinced a wilful and
    conscious disregard of court-ordered discovery, but the Court also recognized that
    the sanction of dismissal should be employed only as a last resort. Accordingly,
    the Court explicitly stated that it would give Plaintiff “one more opportunity to
    respond to Defendants’ discovery requests before turning to the ultimate sanction
    of dismissal, i.e., to see if sanctions other than dismissal may be effective,
    particularly given the Court’s strong policy favoring deciding cases on the
    merits.”
    Plaintiff has refused to take advantage of the opportunity that the Court has
    provided her. In fact, Plaintiff has done essentially nothing to advance her claims
    in this litigation, or otherwise to participate in this case, since she served her
    inadequate discovery responses upon Propounding Defendants on April 18, 2019.
    The Court hereby finds that Plaintiffs failure to serve any revised response,
    inadequate or otherwise, to Propounding Defendants’ discovery requests since
    June 5, 2019, demonstrates a further wilful and conscious disregard of court-
    ordered discovery. As the Supreme Court noted in Hoag, “’[t]rial courts should
    be diligent in the imposition of sanctions upon a party who refuses to comply with
    discovery orders, not just to penalize those whose conduct warrants such
    sanctions, but to deter those who may be tempted to abuse the legal system by
    their irresponsible conduct.’”*
    Regrettably, therefore, because the less severe sanction of a monetary
    penalty has failed to persuade Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s orders
    regarding discovery in this case, the Court is left with no option but to impose the
    ultimate sanction of dismissal. Furthermore, the Court will award additional
    attorneys’ fees to Defendants—an award that is mandatory in a case such as this
    one.°
    WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Joint Motion for
    Sanctions is GRANTED.
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all claims of Plaintiff in this case are
    DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that attorneys’ fees of $475.00 are awarded
    to Defendants pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 37(b)(2)(C), and that the
    amount of $475.00 is hereby reduced to a judgment against Plaintiff and in favor
    of Defendants Alexis Properties, LLC, BB Properties of Delaware, LLC, John
    Welcome d/b/a Welcome Home Realty, and Liveinde.com, Inc.
    * 
    Id. (quoting Holt,
    472 A.2d at 824).
    > See 
    Holt, 472 A.2d at 823
    (where party fails to comply with court order permitting
    discovery, award of expenses including attorneys’ fees is mandatory unless failure was
    justified or other circumstances make award unjust).
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the sanction of $1,025.00 previously
    imposed by this Court in its order of June 5, 2019, is hereby reduced to a judgment
    against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants Alexis Properties, LLC, John
    Welcome d/b/a Welcome Home Realty, and Liveinde.com, Inc.
    /s/ Noel Eason Primos
    Judge
    NEP/wjs
    Via File & ServeXpress and U.S. Mail
    oc: Prothonotary
    cc: Janet Batchelor
    Michael G. Rushe, Esquire
    Daniel L. Huestis, Esquire
    Brian T. Riggin, Esquire
    

Document Info

Docket Number: K17C-11-001 NEP

Judges: Primos J.

Filed Date: 8/26/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/26/2019