Hearn v. Tote Services, Inc.
N16C-08-124 RRC
| Del. Super. Ct. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Hearn (Delaware resident) sued Tote Services, Inc. (Tote) for breach of a three-party Settlement Agreement resolving his discharge; the Agreement involved Tote, Hearn, and the AMO (union headquartered in Florida).
- The Agreement required Tote to expunge records related to Hearn’s grievance and to limit future employment inquiries to positions and dates without reference to the dispute.
- A July 2013 termination letter and other records were later referenced at a federal Marine Board of Investigation hearing in Jacksonville, Florida, to impeach Hearn’s credibility.
- Parties stipulated material facts: Tote executed the Settlement Agreement in Florida; negotiations and performance contacts (crewing, headquarters, union) centered in Florida; Hearn signed in Delaware but received payments in Delaware.
- Tote moved (styled as summary judgment) to apply Florida law and invoke Florida’s absolute litigation privilege to bar Hearn’s claim; the court treated the motion as a motion in limine on evidentiary admissibility.
- The court held Florida has the most significant relationship to the Agreement and applied Florida’s absolute litigation privilege, granting Tote’s motion in limine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law: which state’s law governs the Settlement Agreement | Hearn: Delaware law should apply (or false conflict exists) because he is a Delaware resident and expects enforceability of expungement; Restatement factors should not be applied mechanically | Tote: Florida has the most significant relationship under Restatement §188 — place of contracting, negotiation, performance, subject matter, and parties’ contacts point to Florida | Held: Florida law applies (most significant relationship favors Florida) |
| Applicability of absolute litigation privilege to bar claim | Hearn: Privilege does not apply because Tote took no affirmative act to provide documents at the hearing; no nexus between Tote’s conduct and the hearing | Tote: Florida recognizes a broad absolute litigation privilege protecting statements or acts having "some relation" to judicial or administrative proceedings; applies to administrative proceedings | Held: Florida’s privilege applies because the documents/testimony had "some relation" to the Marine Board hearing, so Tote is protected |
| "False conflict" argument (avoid applying Florida law) | Hearn: Even if laws differ, Delaware has a legitimate interest and Florida’s privilege should not govern because facts suggest Tote didn’t affirmatively enable the testimony; Plaintiff seeks leave to amend if needed | Tote: Plaintiff relies on allegations in the complaint; plaintiff cannot create a false conflict by disavowing his own pleaded facts without amending | Held: No false conflict; court rejects Plaintiff’s attempt to avoid Florida law by recharacterizing his own allegations |
| Procedural posture: conversion to motion in limine vs. summary judgment | Hearn: Seeks discovery and contends factual issues remain; argues motion premature | Tote: Seeks preclusion of maritime hearing evidence and bar to claim; styled motion as summary judgment but seeks evidentiary ruling | Held: Court converted the summary judgment motion to a motion in limine because the core issue is evidentiary admissibility of hearing testimony; granted motion in limine but declined to enter final judgment at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. Indus. Ins. Co., 75 So.2d 198 (Fla. 1954) (extends absolute litigation privilege to administrative proceedings)
- Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606 (Fla. 1994) (explains policy rationale for absolute litigation privilege to prevent chilling testimony)
- James v. Leigh, 145 So.3d 1006 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (discusses Florida’s "some relation" test for litigation privilege)