COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
TAMIKA R. MONTGOMERY-REEVES Leonard Williams Justice Center
VICE CHANCELLOR 500 N. King Street, Suite 11400
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3734
Date Decided: August 3, 2018
Samuel L. Guy, Esquire Steven J. Fineman, Esquire
Samuel L. Guy, Attorney at Law Blake Rohrbacher, Esquire
1601 Concord Pike, Suite 38C Kevin M. Gallagher, Esquire
Wilmington, Delaware 19899 Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
920 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
RE: Samuel L. Guy v. Luke Mette et al.
C.A. No. 2017-0121-TMR
Dear Counsel:
This letter opinion resolves Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
Prosecute and Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for a Default Judgment for Failure to File an
Answer or Opening Brief. For the reasons stated herein, the Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to Prosecute is GRANTED and the Motion for Default Judgment for Failure
to File an Answer or Opening Brief is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action in the morning of February 16, 2017. He also sought
expedition and injunctive relief regarding a Wilmington City Council meeting to be
held that evening. I denied his request for an expedited hearing on the merits and
ordered the parties to confer and establish a case schedule.
Guy v. Mette et al.
C.A. No. 2017-0121-TMR
August 3, 2018
Page 2 of 4
In response to the Court’s order, Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiff a letter
suggesting that the case was moot and should be dismissed. Plaintiff denied that the
case was moot and did not agree to dismiss the complaint. Thus, Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on March 31, 2017. On April 21, 2017, Defendants’ counsel sent
Plaintiff an email seeking a briefing schedule. Plaintiff never responded to the email,
never requested a briefing schedule, and never again contacted Defendants’ counsel.
In fact, Plaintiff did not file anything else in this action until June 29, 2018, after
Defendants moved to dismiss this action.
II. ANALYSIS
The Court of Chancery Rules reflect the inherent power of this Court to
manage its docket to prevent unnecessary and wasteful delay. Under Rule 41(b), a
defendant may move for dismissal of an action for “failure of the plaintiff to
prosecute.” Ct. Ch. R. 41(b). Under Rule 41(e), this Court may dismiss an action
“wherein no action has been taken for a period of 1 year … unless good reason for
the inaction is given.” Ct. Ch. R. 41(e). “In deciding what constitutes ‘good reason’
the court should balance the reasons for, and length of the delay, against the policy
in favor of deciding cases on the merits.” Solow v. Aspect Res., LLC, 46 A.3d 1074,
1076 (Del. 2012). Under Rule 55(b), “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for
affirmative relief is sought, has failed to appear, plead or otherwise defend as
Guy v. Mette et al.
C.A. No. 2017-0121-TMR
August 3, 2018
Page 3 of 4
provided by these Rules, and that fact is made to appear, judgment by default may
be entered.” Ct. Ch. R. 55(b).
“In this case, the . . . analysis under Court of Chancery Rules 41(b) and (e) is
straightforward. Plaintiff failed to take any substantive activity to prosecute this case
for a period of well over one year.” Tooley v. AXA Fin., Inc., 2009 WL 1220624, at
*2 (Del. Ch. Apr. 29, 2009). Plaintiff’s sole justification for his delay is that
Defendants failed to file an opening brief in support of their motion to dismiss. But
Defendants proposed a briefing schedule and waited for more than a year for
Plaintiff’s response. Plaintiff ignored Defendants’ request to enter into a customary
briefing schedule. And Plaintiff never separately applied to this Court for an order
fixing a briefing schedule, which Court of Chancery Rule 7(b)(4) allows. Ct. Ch. R.
7(b)(4) (“If the parties are unable to agree to a brief schedule, any party may apply
for an order fixing such schedule.”). “It is the responsibility of the plaintiff to
prosecute an action, and mere inaction by a defendant does not excuse inaction by a
plaintiff.” Tooley, 2009 WL 1220624, at *2 n.8. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to provide
good reason for his inaction.
The analysis under Court of Chancery Rule 55(b) is equally straightforward.
At no time have Defendants “failed to appear, plead or otherwise defend as provided
by [the] Rules.” To the contrary, they appeared and defended the Motion to Expedite
Guy v. Mette et al.
C.A. No. 2017-0121-TMR
August 3, 2018
Page 4 of 4
and Motion for Injunctive Relief. Thereafter, they filed a motion to dismiss and
attempted to negotiate a briefing schedule with Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion
for default judgment fails.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute
is GRANTED and the Motion for Default Judgment for Failure to File an Answer
or Opening Brief is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
/s/Tamika Montgomery-Reeves
Vice Chancellor
TMR/jp