Day v. Loucks
N16C-10-088 EMD
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jul 28, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Roy A. Day sued 21st Century Centennial Insurance Co., William Loucks, and Anthony DeSantis alleging breach of contract and torts arising from claims handling for two vehicles; he sought very large compensatory and punitive damages.
- Day filed a Complaint (Oct. 2016) and an Amended Complaint (Oct. 31, 2016); service on 21st Century was irregular and defendants Loucks and DeSantis were not served.
- 21st Century moved to dismiss arguing Day is subject to prior federal court injunctions/restrictions and that the pleadings fail to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6) and statutory grounds).
- The court reviewed Day’s extensive prior litigation (Delaware and Florida federal courts), concluding the present claims are substantially similar to previously litigated claims and that Day is subject to pre-filing conditions and monetary sanctions ordered in prior federal cases.
- The Superior Court dismissed the action without prejudice under the doctrine of comity, declining to allow Day to avoid federal-court-imposed procedures and sanctions by re-filing in state court; the court permitted refiling only if Day first proves he has satisfied the prior monetary sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court should consider the Motion to Dismiss when an Amended Complaint exists | Day: Amended Complaint controls; motion targets earlier Complaint so court lacks competent jurisdiction | 21st Century: dismissal still appropriate given prior injunctions and pleading defects | Court proceeded to consider dismissal and dismissed action without prejudice under comity concerns |
| Whether this action duplicates claims already barred/regulated by federal courts and subject to pre-filing conditions | Day: He is not enjoined from filing actions in most states and may proceed here | 21st Century: Day is subject to prior federal injunctions and must comply with conditions (including payment of sanctions) before filing similar suits | Court agreed with 21st Century; refused to permit litigation that circumvents federal procedures |
| Whether the Complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)/10 Del. C. § 8803 | Day: Pleads viable causes of action | 21st Century: Pleading defects warrant dismissal | Court did not rest dismissal solely on 12(b)(6); primary ground was comity and avoidance of circumvention of federal orders |
| Whether the Superior Court should defer to federal courts’ management of this litigant’s filings (comity) | Day: State court is proper venue and should hear the case | 21st Century: Delaware court should respect federal courts’ strong interest and procedures regarding Day’s litigation conduct | Court applied comity, dismissed without prejudice, and required compliance with federal-court-imposed conditions before refiling |
Key Cases Cited
- Day v. Loucks, [citation="636 F. App'x 830"] (3d Cir.) (affirming prior federal-court rulings regarding Day’s litigation conduct)
- Day v. Toner, [citation="549 F. App'x 66"] (3d Cir.) (discussing Day’s pattern of filings and related sanctions)