Hammer v. Howard Medical, Inc.
S15C-05-006 RFS
| Del. Super. Ct. | Aug 18, 2017Background
- Hammer sued Howard Medical and Howard Industries for unpaid commissions; Howard counterclaimed with tortious interference, breach of accord and satisfaction, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The case proceeded through discovery and multiple scheduling changes.
- Defendants moved to dismiss Hammer’s claims for discovery violations (failure to fully answer interrogatories); the motion was filed March 29, 2017 and noticed for court action in April 2017.
- The final pretrial conference was rescheduled to April 26, 2017; the court mailed scheduling letters and uploaded notices to the electronic docket. Hammer did not attend the April 26 conference.
- At the April 26 conference the court: denied Hammer’s fee request, granted but reduced Howard’s fee request, granted Howard’s Motion to Dismiss for discovery violations (dismissal with prejudice after weighing Drejka factors), and Howard orally dismissed its counterclaims without prejudice.
- Hammer filed a post-judgment Motion for Relief from Order (styled as seeking relief under Rules 60 and 61 but effectively a reargument), contending lack of notice, clerical mistakes, compliance with discovery, illness, and judicial bias.
- The court denied the Motion: it found no clerical errors under Rule 60(a), concluded adequate notice was provided (so orders were not void under Rule 60(b)(4)), affirmed dismissal under Drejka analysis, and rejected any relief under Rule 61 or Rule 60(b)(6). The court also held the motion was time-barred under Rule 59(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether orders are void for ex parte proceedings / lack of notice (Rule 60(b)(4)) | Hammer: had no notice of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or the April 26 pretrial conference; proceedings were effectively ex parte | Howard: Motion to Dismiss was noticed; the court sent scheduling letters and electronic docket entries; Hammer had notice | Court: Adequate notice was given by mail and electronic docket; proceedings were not ex parte; Rule 60(b)(4) relief denied |
| Whether clerical mistakes justify correction (Rule 60(a)) | Hammer: alleged clerical mistakes and omissions in court letters and orders | Howard: no examples of clerical error; irrelevant to outcome | Court: No specific clerical errors identified; Rule 60(a) relief denied |
| Whether dismissal for discovery violations was improper (sanctions / Drejka factors) | Hammer: she had answered interrogatories and complied; dismissal was unwarranted | Howard: Hammer repeatedly failed to fully answer interrogatories; dismissal was appropriate | Court: Applied Drejka factors and found willful noncompliance and prior dilatory conduct; dismissal with prejudice was appropriate |
| Whether Rule 61 (harmless error) or other grounds justify relief | Hammer: sought relief under Rule 61 and Rule 60(b)(6); argued illness and procedural unfairness affected rights | Howard: Rule 61 inapplicable; Hammer has not shown substantial error affecting rights or likelihood of different outcome | Court: Rule 61 is for harmless-error review (usually appellate/trial new-trial context) and cannot be used to reargue motion; no error affected substantial rights; Rule 60(b)(6) relief denied; motion also barred by Rule 59(e) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brookins v. State, 922 A.2d 389 (Del. 2007) (definition of "ex parte" and discussion of when communications/proceedings are considered ex parte)
- Drejka v. Hitchens Tire Serv. Inc., 15 A.3d 1221 (Del. 2010) (factors to consider when imposing dismissal sanction for discovery abuses)
- Los v. Los, 595 A.2d 381 (Del. 1991) (standard for recusal and assessing judicial impartiality)
- Putney v. Rosin, 791 A.2d 902 (Del. Super. Ct. 2001) (standards for granting a new trial and application of harmless-error principles)