Lewis v. Dover Police Department, K23C-01-019 NEP

Gary Lewis (pro se) sued the Dover Police Department (treated as suit against the City of Dover) alleging defamation for including his photo in a January 14, 2021 press release about “Operation Rise-N-Shyne,” though he claims he was not associated with the operation.
The press release with Lewis’s photo appeared on the Department’s website and was distributed to news outlets; Lewis sought removal/retraction of the image and $1,000,000 in damages.
The City moved to dismiss under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6), arguing immunity under the County and Municipal Tort Claims Act (CMTCA), 10 Del. C. §§ 4010–4013.
The Court reviewed the CMTCA: § 4011 grants broad municipal immunity from tort claims for damages; § 4012 lists the only narrow exceptions that waive immunity; § 4011(c) creates potential personal liability for employees in limited circumstances.
The Court found no § 4012 exception that would waive immunity for a defamation claim and held § 4011(c) creates only individual—not municipal—liability; therefore the City is immune and the damages claim was dismissed.
The Court noted the CMTCA shields only damages claims (not requests for removal), but also observed that the Superior Court lacks equitable authority to grant the injunctive relief Lewis sought.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City is immune under the CMTCA from Lewis’s defamation damages claim	Lewis alleged officers acted with willful and malicious intent, implying liability	City invoked CMTCA immunity; §4012 exceptions don’t apply to defamation	City immune; damages claim dismissed
Whether §4012 contains an exception that waives immunity for this claim	(No §4012 argument advanced)	§4012’s listed exceptions are exclusive and none cover defamation	No §4012 exception applies
Whether §4011(c) exposes the City to liability for willful/malicious employee conduct	§4011(c) shows employees acted willfully, so City should be liable	§4011(c) creates personal liability for employees only, not derivative municipal liability	§4011(c) does not strip municipal immunity; it applies to individuals only
Whether the complaint survives a 12(b)(6) challenge accepting pleaded facts	Lewis pleaded defamation and damages	Even if facts accepted, statutory immunity precludes recovery as a matter of law	Complaint fails as no conceivable damages recovery under CMTCA

Fiat Motors of N. Am., Inc. v. Mayor & Council of City of Wilmington, 498 A.2d 1062 (Del. 1985) (holding §4012 lists the only activities that waive municipal immunity)
Walls v. Rees, 569 A.2d 1161 (Del. 1990) (explaining that §4012 exceptions are subject to strict construction)
Sadler v. New Castle County, 565 A.2d 917 (Del. 1989) (quoted for construction of CMTCA exceptions)
Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967 (Del. 1978) (standard for deciding a 12(b)(6) motion)
Robinson v. Clemons, 987 F. Supp. 280 (D. Del. 1998) (interpreting §4011(c) as creating individual—not municipal—liability)
Schueler v. Martin, 674 A.2d 882 (Del. Super. Ct. 1996) (municipal immunity remains despite reckless/wanton or willful employee conduct)
Phillips v. Conley, 860 A.2d 811 (Del. 2004) (noting limitations on Superior Court’s equitable relief authority)