IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
LORETTA JACKSON, §
§
Plaintiff Below, § No. 219, 2021
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
DELAWARE OFFICE OF § C.A. No. N21C-06-065
ANIMAL WELFARE and §
DELAWARE DIVISION OF §
PUBLIC HEALTH, §
§
Defendants Below, §
Appellees. §
Submitted: February 4, 2022
Decided: March 22, 2022
Before VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.
ORDER
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, we
conclude that the Superior Court’s dismissal of the complaint filed by the plaintiff
below-appellant, Loretta Jackson, should be affirmed. The Superior Court dismissed
the complaint, which was the third complaint Jackson had filed relating to the death
of her dog in June 2016, as barred by res judicata. Jackson primarily reargues the
Superior Court’s dismissal of her first complaint in this appeal. As this Court
previously held in affirming the Superior Court’s dismissal of Jackson’s second
complaint, Jackson cannot relitigate the dismissal of her first complaint.1 To the
extent Jackson argues that res judicata did not bar her new claim that the defendants
below-appellees committed fraud by providing a false name for the animal welfare
officer allegedly responsible for the death of her dog, that claim would be barred by
the three-year statute of limitations as Jackson has had notice of the correct name
since the filing of the first motion to dismiss in December 2016.2
This is the third appeal Jackson has filed arising from the same claims. We
warn Jackson that if the Court finds she has abused the judicial process by filing
frivolous or malicious litigation, the Court may enjoin her from filing future appeals
without leave of the Court.3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice
1
Jackson v. Barla, 2019 WL 1941484 (Del. May 1, 2019).
2
10 Del. C. § 8106(a).
3
10 Del. C. § 8803(e).
2