Welenc v. University of Delaware
N17C-04-255 AML
| Del. Super. Ct. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- In 1979–80 Welenc was subject to disciplinary proceedings at the University of Delaware, was involuntarily withdrawn, later readmitted, and settled a claim with the University in 1981 for $1,500. The settlement letter stated his "University files w[ould] be disposed of in the same manner as all student files."
- Welenc completed coursework in August 1980; his diploma was dated 1981. He claims the University post-dated the diploma and retained/disclosed his student file in violation of the settlement and defamed him to prospective employers.
- Welenc discovered the diploma was dated 1981 and discussed the discrepancy with University staff by 2000; he applied to employers through 2001 (last application alleged in complaint).
- In April 2017 Welenc sued for breach of the 1981 settlement agreement, defamation/slander, and sought an order changing the diploma date; the University moved to dismiss as time-barred.
- The Superior Court accepted the complaint allegations as true for the motion-to-dismiss standard but held Welenc had actual notice by 2000, so his contract and tort claims accrued then and are barred by Delaware’s three-year statute of limitations.
- The court also denied Welenc’s motion for attorney sanctions; the court found the University’s stay of discovery was substantially justified and sanctions were unwarranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether breach-of-contract claim (post-dated diploma; retention of file) is timely | Welenc: University breached 1981 settlement by post-dating diploma and retaining/disclosing his file; seeks correction and damages | University: Breach accrued when diploma issued/when file retained; three-year statute of limitations bars claim | Court: Claim accrued by 1981 (and Welenc had actual notice by 2000); contract claim time-barred and no adequate factual showing University treated his file differently |
| Whether defamation claim is timely | Welenc: University defamed him by misrepresenting graduation year/disciplinary record to employers | University: Defamation accrued when alleged communications occurred or when plaintiff discovered facts; three-year limitation applies | Court: Welenc had actual notice by 2000; defamation claims accrued such that they were time-barred by 2017 filing |
| Whether equitable tolling/fraudulent concealment saves claims | Welenc: Claimed he could not bring suit without later documentary confirmation (argues tolling until 2015) | University: Plaintiff was on inquiry notice earlier; evidence later obtained does not postpone accrual | Court: Plaintiff conflated proof with notice; inquiry/actual notice occurred by 2000, so tolling does not save claims |
| Whether sanctions against University counsel were appropriate | Welenc: Sought sanctions for allegedly derogatory/untrue statements and sought to compel discovery | University: Moved to stay discovery pending dispositive motion; opposition justified | Held: Court granted stay, denied sanctions; no basis to award fees under Rule 37 because motion to compel was not granted and stay was substantially justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. D'Elia, 129 A.3d 881 (Del. 2015) (motion-to-dismiss standard and pleading rules)
- Fish Eng'g Corp. v. Hutchinson, 162 A.2d 722 (Del. 1960) (motion-to-dismiss: recovery only if conceivable set of facts supports claim)
- Pfeffer v. Redstone, 965 A.2d 676 (Del. 2009) (courts accept well-pleaded allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
- Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005) (draw all reasonable inferences for plaintiff when ruling on a motion to dismiss)