Shahin v. Sam's East, Inc. ( 2019 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
NINA SHAHIN, §
§ No. 448, 2018
Appellant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ C.A. No. K18A-01-001
SAM’S EAST, INC. and §
SYNCHRONY BANK, §
§
Appellees Below, §
Appellees. §
Submitted: January 25, 2019
Decided: April 4, 2019
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears to
the Court that:
(1) This appeal arises from the Superior Court’s affirmance of the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas. Having carefully reviewed the record, we
find no error or abuse of the discretion in the Superior Court’s decision.
Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. As a result of the appellant’s
vexatious and frivolous conduct, we also award the appellees the reasonable
expenses, including attorneys’ fees, that they incurred in this appeal.
(2) On November 14, 2016, the appellant, Nina Shahin, filed a complaint
against the appellees, Sam’s East, Inc. (“Sam’s Club”) and Synchrony Bank in the
Court of Common Pleas. She alleged that she was unable to buy a $9.98 Arctic
Trunk Organizer advertised by Sam’s Club in August 2016 because Sam’s Club ran
out of the item. She alleged that Synchrony Bank wrongly placed a hold on her
Sam’s Club Master Card for fraudulent activity two weeks later that led to her
cancelling the card. She sought damages of $20,000 for damage to her credit
standing, Sam’s Club’s poor service, insult, and humiliation.
(3) Sam’s Club and Synchrony Bank answered the complaint and asserted
affirmative defenses. Shahin filed a variety of documents including objections to
the participation of the defendants’ attorneys, a motion for correction of the legal
name of one defendant, and objections to Synchrony Bank’s affirmative defenses.
On March 23, 2017, the Court of Common Pleas granted the motion for correction
of the legal name and denied the remaining motions. On April 11, 2017, Shahin
filed objections to the March 23rd order and to the Court of Common Pleas judge
presiding over the case.
(4) On April 12, 2017, the defendants informed Shahin that they would
move for summary judgment and might seek attorney’s fees and costs if she did not
voluntarily dismiss her complaint. They provided Shahin with documents showing
the Sam’s Club advertisement stated that only limited quantities were available,
2
Synchrony Bank placed a hold on her Sam’s Club Master Card for suspicious
charges in Colorado (as authorized by the credit card agreement), and Synchrony
Bank attempted to notify Shahin of the reason for the hold. In response, Shahin
stated, among other things, that there could be no charges in Colorado because she
had never been there.
(5) On June 14, 2017, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment.
Sam’s Club argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because it did not
breach the membership agreement, the sales notice stated that only limited quantities
were available, Shahin could not prove any of her claims, and Shahin did not suffer
any injury. Synchrony Bank argued that it was entitled to summary judgment
because it did not breach the terms of the parties’ agreement, it did not act
fraudulently in connection with the Sam’s Club sale, and it did not conspire with
Sam’s Club. In response, Shahin filed motions for sanctions, alleging that the
motions for summary judgment were full of perjury and fraud.
(6) On June 28, 2017, the Court of Common Pleas held a pretrial
teleconference. After hearing arguments from the defendants and Shahin, the Court
of Common Pleas granted the motions for summary judgment, denied Shahin’s
motions for sanctions, and denied Shahin’s additional objections. After expressing
anger at the rulings, Shahin left the teleconference before the court had adjourned.
3
Shahin subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration and motions for sanctions
against the defendants’ attorneys.
(7) On August 17, 2017, the Court of Common Pleas entered an order
denying Shahin’s objections to the judge, denying Shahin’s motions for sanctions,
granting the motions for summary judgment, and denying Shahin’s motion for
reconsideration. On August 28, 2017, Shahin filed a motion for access to the tape
of the June 28, 2017 hearing because she claimed that the transcript contained
unspecified inaccuracies that might be racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1)
and 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B). Shahin also filed a motion to transfer the case to the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware.1 On October 11, 2017, the
Court of Common Pleas denied Shahin’s motion for access to the tape of the June
28, 2017 hearing and the motion to transfer. Shahin filed a motion for
reconsideration, which the Court of Common Pleas denied on December 19, 2017.
(8) On January 2, 2018, Shahin filed a notice of appeal in the Superior
Court. Shahin attached the December 19, 2017 order to her notice of appeal. She
identified the falsification of the June 28, 2017 transcript and the denial of access to
the tape recording of the hearing as the grounds for her appeal.
1
The District Court found no basis for removal and remanded to the Court of Common Pleas.
Shahin v. Dover Sam’s Club East, Inc., 2018 WL 3866677, at *2 (D. Del. Aug. 14, 2018).
4
(9) After briefing, the Superior Court held that the Court of Common Pleas
did not err in denying Shahin’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying her
motion for access to the tape recording because Shahin merely rehashed earlier
accusations of racketeering and misconduct. This appeal followed. On November
29, 2018, Shahin filed a motion demanding evidence that the appellees’ counsel
mailed her the answering brief as stated in the certificate of service. The appellees’
counsel stated that they had mailed the brief to Shahin’s address and had not received
anything back as undeliverable. This Court denied Shahin’s motion, finding there
was no basis for requiring further evidence of service.
(10) On appeal, Shahin accuses the appellees and their counsel of fraud and
perjury, claims the Court of Common Pleas judge violated her civil rights in a
different case involving the Dover Police Department and erred in granting the
motions for summary judgment and denying her request for access to the audio
recording, and argues that the Superior Court ignored the defendants’ perjury in
issuing its decision. The appellees argue that the Superior Court did not err and seek
their costs and attorneys’ fees in this appeal for Shahin’s frivolous conduct.
(11) “In an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas to the Superior Court,
the standard of review is whether there is legal error and whether the factual findings
made by the trial judge are sufficiently supported by the record and are the product
5
of an orderly and logical deductive process.”2 We apply the same standard in our
review of the Superior Court’s decision.3
(12) Having reviewed the parties’ positions on appeal and the record below,
we conclude that the Superior Court did not err in affirming the Court of Common
Pleas’ denial of Shahin’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of her motion for
the June 28, 2017 audio recording. The audio recording was the only issue Shahin
identified in her appeal to the Superior Court, and the December 19, 2017 order
denying her motion for reconsideration was the only document attached to the
appeal. Shahin has never identified the alleged errors in the transcript that she claims
show racketeering. Instead, she makes conclusory and unsupported claims of
perjury, fraud, conspiracy, and discrimination. In the absence of any reason to
believe the transcript was inaccurate or insufficient, Shahin did not establish a basis
for access to the audio recording.
(13) A motion for reargument under Rule 59(e) will only be granted if the
court has overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles, or misapprehended
the law or facts in such a way to change to outcome of the underlying decision. 4 A
2
Onkeo v. State, 2008 WL 3906076, at *1 (Del. 2008) (citing Levitt v. Bouvier, 287 A.2d 671, 673
(Del. 1972)).
3
Baker v. Connell, 488 A.2d 1303, 1309 (Del. 1985).
4
Maddox v. Isaacs, 2013 WL 4858989, at *1 (Del. Sept. 10, 2013) (“The proper purpose of a Rule
59(e) motion for reargument is to request the trial court to reconsider whether it overlooked an
applicable legal precedent or misapprehended the law or the facts in such a way as to affect the
outcome of the case.”).
6
motion for reargument should not be used to rehash arguments previously raised.5
As the Superior Court recognized, Shahin’s motion for reconsideration in the Court
of Common Pleas simply rehashed her earlier accusations of racketeering and
misconduct. This did not establish a basis for reargument. The Superior Court did
not err therefore in affirming the Court of Common Pleas’ denial of Shanin’s motion
for reconsideration. The Superior Court also did not err in denying Shahin’s motion
for reargument of its order affirming the Court of Common Pleas. Shahin’s
restatement of her baseless accusations of fraud and racketeering was not a basis for
reargument.
(14) Under Supreme Court Rule 20(f), this Court may award attorneys’ fees
and expenses in a frivolous appeal.6 Shahin had no basis to demand the audio
recording of the June 28, 2017 hearing in the Court of Common Pleas. She offered
nothing, other than unsupported allegations of perjury and fraud, in her appeal of the
Superior Court’s decision. Shahin has burdened this Court and others with her
numerous and meritless filings.7 We conclude that this appeal is frivolous and that
the appellees should be awarded their reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. The
appellees are directed to file, by April 17, 2019, affidavits showing the reasonable
5
Shultz v. Satchel, 2019 WL 125677, at *2 (Del. Jan. 7, 2019).
6
Supr. Ct. R. 20(f); Scion Breckenridge Managing Member, LLC v. ASB Allegiance Real Estate
Fund, 68 A.3d 665, 688 (Del. 2013).
7
In just the last eight months, Shahin has filed four appeals, including this one, in this Court. See
Shahin v. UPS Store, Inc., No. 406, 2018; Shahin v. Boney, No. 425, 2018; Shahin v. Sam’s Club
East, No. 448, 2018; Shahin v. City of Dover, No. 51, 2019.
7
attorneys’ fees and expenses they incurred in litigating this appeal for consideration
by this Court in determining the amount to be awarded under this order.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED and that the appellant is ordered to pay the costs assessed by
this Court. The appellees are directed to file affidavits showing their reasonable
attorneys’ fees and expenses in this appeal by April 17, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
8