IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
MICHAEL HAAS,
Plaintiff,
V.
C.A. NO.: CPU4-17-002181
PETTINARO MANAGEMENT LLC,
PETTINARO ENTERPRISES LLC, and
PETI`INARO ENTERPRISES
\/\./\_/\_/\/\_/\_/\_/\_/\/\_/\_/
HOLDINGS LLC,
Defendants.
Submitted: Septernber 1, 2017
Decided: October 13, 2017
Tabatha L. Castto, Esq. Eric S. Thompson, Esq.
The Castro Firm, Inc. Franklin & Prokopik
1719 Delaware Ave. 300 Delaware Ave., Ste. 1210
Wilmington, DE 19806 Wilmington, DE 19801
Atfame)/far P/az`nz‘g`[j” Al‘tomgyfor Dg‘ena’ant,r
DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
(Amended Case No.)
sMALLs, c.J.
This is a Motion to Dismiss (the “l\/Iotion”) a Complaint filed by Plaintiff Michael Haas
(“Plaintiff”). Defenda`nts Pettinaro Management, LLC, Pettinaro Enterprises, LLC, and
Pettinaro Enterprises Holdings, LLC (“Defendants”) bring this Motion arguing Plaintiff failed
to state a claim upon Which relief can be granted pursuant to Com“z‘ of Comwon P/ea§ Cz'w'/ Ru/e
12(b)(6). On September 1, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the Motion, and reserved its
decision This is the Court’s decision on the Motion.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case involves a slip-and-fall negligence action that Plaintiff alleges he suffered on
January 12, 2015 While leaving his place of employment, Navient. On December 21, 2016,
Plaintiff filed a complaint against Buccini/Pollin Group, Inc. (“Original Complaint”), alleging
per re negligence When Plaintiff slipped and fell on black ice in the parking lot between the
parking garage and l\lavient.1 On February 3, 2017, Buccini/Pollin Group, Inc. Was properly
served, and on April 5, 2017 a stipulation of dismissal Was filed. Both parties signed the
stipulation and voluntarily dismissed the matter With prejudice against Buccini/Pollin Group,
lnc. Plaintiff stated that it signed the stipulation because it discovered that Defendants Were
the rightful owners of the property, not Buccini/Pollin Group, Inc.
On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff attempted to amend the Original Complaint, substituting
Defendants for Buccini/Pollin Group, Inc. (“Amended Complaint”). However, the Court of
Common Pleas’ Clerk’s Offlce (the “Clerk’s Office”) did not accept the Amended Complaint
because the stipulation of dismissal had been filed under the H¢z¢zr 0. Bm‘cz'm` Po//z`n Grou}> docket.
1 Plaintiff’ s Complaint at 1, Michael Haas v. Buccini Pollin Group, C.A. No. CPU4-17-000012 (Del. Com. Pl.
Dec. 21, 2016) (“Plaintiff’s Original Complaint”).
Hence, on May 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in the present action (“Present
Complaint”) against Defendants. The Present Complaint is identical to the Amended
Complaint. On July 11, 2017, Defendants were properly served. On July 18, 2017, they filed
the present l\/Iotion. Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s case is barred by the statute of
limitations2 Defendants argue that because the statute of limitations has passed and Plaintiff
has not presented an argument for equitable tolling, his Present Cornplaint is barred. y
Alternatively, Defendants note that the relation back doctrine under Cozm‘ of Common P/e¢zi Cz'w'/
Rz/¢/e 75 is inapplicable to an original complaint.3
On july 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Reipome fo Dej”endanlr’Mofz`on to Dz`.rmz'.ri (“Response”).
Plaintiff argues that his “original intent” was to identify the correct owner of the property
where the injury occurred and “protect his interests.”4 In his Response, Plaintiff asserts that
he “did his due diligence” when attempting to locate the correct owner of the property.5
Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that his attempt to file an amended complaint was curtailed by
the Clerk’s Office.6 Plaintiff alleges that the reviewing clerk in the File&Serve system rejected
his Amended Complaint because the parties had signed the stipulation of dismissal7 ln light
of his intent and the reviewing clerk’s rejection of his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff requests
that the Court deem the Present Complaint to be the Amended Complaint.8 In addition,
2 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at 2.
3 Id.
4 Plaintist Response to Motion to Dismiss at 3.
5 Ia'. at 4. Exhibit D to Plaintiff’s Response indicates that Plaintiff spoke with Jospeh Lisicky, general counsel
for The Buccini/Pollin Group, Inc., Katie Ada at Star Building LLC, which is allegedly noted as the owner of
the property on the New Castle County Parcel Search website, and “Pettinaro,” an affiliate of Star Building,
LLC. Fee m'., Exhibit D. According to Plaintiff counsel’s legal assistant, “Pettinaro” initially informed
Plaintiff that it did not own the property where he was injured
6 Id. at 4.
7 Ia'.
8 Id.
Plaintiff requests that once the Present Complaint is deemed an amended pleading filed on
May 5, 2017, the Court should relate it back to the original filing date of December 21, 2016.9
Plaintiff argues that the requirements of the relation back doctrine are satisfied because the
claim is identical, Defendants were not prejudiced as they received notice of the action, and
Defendants knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against
them.10
On September 1, 2017, the parties appeared before the Court for the motion hearing.
Naturally, the parties’ arguments mirrored their written arguments Although, defense counsel
deviated slightly by introducing two cases for the Court’s consideration that were not cited in
the Motion: Lwez‘f a Pz`ez‘/oc/é and Wa//éer a Hund/er. On September 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
Regbom€ to Defendanfr’ Cme L¢m/ Submz`n‘ed af the Motz`on Hean'ng 012 §e})lember 7, 2077, addressing
the aforementioned case law.11
LEGAL STANDARD
(G(
On a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether it appears with reasonable
certainty that, under any set of facts which could be proven to support the claim, the plaintiffs
would be entitled to relief.”’12 ln making this determination, the Court is limited to consider
only facts contained within the four corners of the complaint, and must accept all well-pled
allegations as true.13 In applying this standard, the Court will draw every reasonable factual
9 Ia'. at 5~6.
111 Id. at 6.
11 Plaintist relevant analysis of Defendants’ case law will be addressed z'nfm.
12 Szez`/¢z 1). Szez`/a, 2009 WL 2581887, at *1 (Del. Com. Pl. Aug. 20, 2009) (quoting Mor¢