Colatriano v. Roman
N17C-01-290 ALR
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jul 7, 2017Background
- Colatriano worked ~2 months as a part‑time office administrator for Nature’s Way Medicine, a practice founded and run by Dr. Matthew Roman.
- She alleges Roman’s conduct forced her to resign on May 10, 2016, and seeks damages and injunctive relief in Superior Court against Roman (Nature’s Way Medicine is not a defendant).
- On June 15, 2016 Colatriano filed a Charge of Discrimination against Nature’s Way Medicine with the Delaware Department of Labor; the Department dismissed the Charge for lack of jurisdiction and issued a Right‑to‑Sue notice permitting suit against the employer (not an individual).
- Colatriano filed the Superior Court complaint against Roman on January 19, 2017. Roman moved to dismiss on February 24, 2017. The court set a response deadline and granted an extension, but Colatriano never filed a responsive brief or obtained counsel.
- The court considered dismissal both for procedural default (failure to respond) and on the merits under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6), concluding dismissal was warranted because Colatriano failed to exhaust required administrative remedies and no conceivable set of facts would entitle her to relief against Roman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint should be dismissed for failure to respond to a motion to dismiss | Colatriano did not file a response; sought extra time and counsel | Roman argued dismissal as unopposed and for failure to prosecute | Court held dismissal on procedural default was permissible due to plaintiff’s failure to respond |
| Whether complaint states a claim against Roman under Rule 12(b)(6) | Alleged harmful conduct by Roman forced resignation and warrants damages and injunctive relief | Roman argued the complaint fails to state a claim and plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies | Court held complaint fails 12(b)(6) — no reasonably conceivable set of provable facts entitling relief against Roman |
| Whether administrative exhaustion/jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied | Colatriano relied on Department’s Right‑to‑Sue notice arising from Charge against the employer | Roman argued plaintiff did not exhaust remedies against an individual and Department dismissed Charge for lack of jurisdiction over the individual | Court held plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies against Roman and thus jurisdictional prerequisites were not met |
| Whether pro se status excuses failures to prosecute or comply with rules | Colatriano sought leniency as an unrepresented litigant | Roman urged enforcement of rules and dismissal despite pro se status | Court held pro se litigants receive no special rule; they must diligently prosecute; dismissal appropriate here |
Key Cases Cited
- Draper v. Medical Center of Delaware, 767 A.2d 796 (Del. 2001) (pro se litigants are not excused from diligent prosecution and procedural rules)
- Keener v. Isken, 58 A.3d 407 (Del. 2013) (recognizing public policy favoring resolution on the merits but permitting dismissal for procedural failures)
- Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029 (Del. 1998) (standards for accepting complaint allegations as true on a motion to dismiss)
- Tsipouras v. Tsipouras, 677 A.2d 493 (Del. 1996) (procedural default/dismissal principles in Delaware courts)
- Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967 (Del. 1978) (standard that dismissal is appropriate when no reasonably conceivable set of facts entitles plaintiff to relief)