Greenfield v. Budget of Delaware, Inc.
N16C-07-115 FWW
| Del. Super. Ct. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Tiffany Greenfield, as next friend/guardian ad litem for minor Ethan Ford, sued several Division of Family Services (DFS) employees in their individual and official capacities alleging negligence, gross negligence, reckless conduct, § 1983 violations (state-created danger), negligent hiring/supervision, and IIED stemming from multiple DFS investigations into Ethan’s home and the subsequent death of his sister.
- The original complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege individual culpability and for Rule 9(b) pleading deficiencies; Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging multiple investigations were grossly negligent and that DFS ignored ongoing risks.
- DFS Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting DSTCA immunity (10 Del. C. ch. 40), lack of plausible factual allegations, and the two-year statute of limitations in 10 Del. C. § 8119.
- Plaintiff argued the acts were ministerial (not discretionary) and thus not immune, alleged gross negligence to defeat DSTCA immunity, asserted a state-created danger claim under § 1983, and contended the statute of limitations began at discovery (sister’s death) or that wrongful conduct was continuous.
- The Court analyzed DSTCA’s three-part immunity test (discretion, good faith, absence of gross negligence), found DFS actions discretionary (investigative discretion), concluded plaintiff failed to plead gross negligence or willful/wanton conduct as to individual defendants, dismissed IIED and supervisory liability claims, dismissed § 1983 state-created danger claim for failing all four elements, and found the action time-barred under § 8119.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DFS employees are immune under DSTCA | Acts were ministerial under 16 Del. C. §§ 901,902,906, so immunity does not apply | DFS actions are discretionary investigative decisions protected by DSTCA | Held immune: Court found actions discretionary and plaintiff failed to plead ministerial duty |
| Whether plaintiff pleaded gross negligence to overcome DSTCA | Alleged multiple investigations were grossly negligent and reckless | Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and do not show extreme departure from care | Held: Insufficient pleadings of gross negligence; claims dismissed |
| Validity of § 1983 state-created danger/due process/equal protection claims | DFS conduct created/heightened risk and violated due process and equal protection | Plaintiff failed to plead required elements; conceded some constitutional claims | Held: § 1983 claims dismissed—equal protection/due process waived; state-created danger fails all four prongs |
| Timeliness under 10 Del. C. § 8119 | Limitations tolled until discovery (sister’s death) or wrongful acts were continuous | Last DFS act was May 29, 2014; suit filed July 15, 2016, so barred; tolling for minority not applicable | Held: Claims time-barred; statute begins on date injuries were sustained, not later discovery; dismissal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Browne v. Robb, 583 A.2d 949 (Del. 1990) (12(b)(6) standard: plaintiff may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances)
- Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005) (pleading standards; draw inferences for nonmoving party)
- Jardel Co., Inc. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518 (Del. 1987) (definition and standard for gross negligence)
- Sussex County v. Morris, 610 A.2d 1354 (Del. 1992) (distinguishing discretionary from ministerial acts)
- Fanean v. Rite Aid Corp. of Delaware, Inc., 984 A.2d 812 (Del. Super. 2009) (negligent hiring/supervision principles)