Samuel L. Guy v. Luke Mette

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
TAMIKA R. MONTGOMERY-REEVES Leonard L. Williams Justice Center
VICE CHANCELLOR 500 N. King Street, Suite 11400
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3734
February 16, 2017
Samuel L. Guy, Esq. Steven J. Fineman, Esq.
1601 Concord Pike Blake Rohrbacher, Esq.
Suite 38C Kevin M. Gallagher, Esq.
Wilmington, DE 19899 Richards Layton & Finger, P.A.
One Rodney Square
920 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: Samuel L. Guy v. Luke Mette, et al.
Civil Action No. 2017-0121-TMR
Dear Counsel:
Today, on February 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint for injunctive
relief, a motion for injunctive relief, and a motion to expedite. Plaintiff requests that
the motion to expedite be granted and a hearing to address the motion for injunctive
relief be held today in advance of a 6:30 p.m. Wilmington City Council meeting.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are improperly excluding his Prayer Resolution
from the agenda for the meeting and violating his constitutional rights by introducing
a competing Universal Prayer resolution.
In December 2016, Councilwoman Shabazz allegedly removed the traditional
Invocation and replaced it with a Silent Reflection as part of the City Council Session
Guy v. Mette, et al.
C.A. No. 2017-0121-TMR
February 16, 2017
Page 2 of 3
Rules. Thereafter, the City Council allegedly has had a Silent Reflection at all
subsequent meetings. Plaintiff purportedly announced his intention to introduce a
resolution to reinstate Prayer at a February 2, 2017 City Council Meeting. His
resolution, however, allegedly has not been approved “as to form,” while a separate
resolution to establish Universal Prayer at the City Council meetings has been
approved and added to tonight’s agenda.
This Court does not set matters for an expedited hearing or permit expedited
discovery unless there is a showing of good cause why that is necessary. 1 In
deciding whether to expedite proceedings, the Court must determine “whether in the
circumstances the plaintiff has articulated a sufficiently colorable claim and shown
a sufficient possibility of a threatened irreparable injury, as would justify imposing
on the defendants and the public the extra (and sometimes substantial) costs of an
expedited preliminary injunction proceeding.”2 In order for the Court to grant a
motion for expedition, a plaintiff must allege “some imminent circumstance
demanding immediate action.”3
1
Raymond Revocable Tr. v. MAT Five LLC, 2008 WL 2673341, at *2 (Del. Ch.
June 26, 2008).
2
Giammargo v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 1994 WL 672698, at *2 (Del. Ch. Nov.
15, 1994).
3
Casale v. Bare, 2009 WL 296262, at *2 (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2009).
2
Guy v. Mette, et al.
C.A. No. 2017-0121-TMR
February 16, 2017
Page 3 of 3
Plaintiff has not filed a brief in support of his motion for expedited
proceedings. Instead, he refers the Court to the complaint, but the complaint does
not describe any irreparable harm sufficient to justify a hearing on the merits today.
In his motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff states that irreparable harm will occur if
this motion is not granted today because “[a]fter this evening there will be no
appetite to address this particular issue.”4 Plaintiff offers no explanation for what
this means or how it amounts to irreparable harm. Because Plaintiff has not
adequately alleged irreparable harm, I need not address the other issues regarding
expedition as they relate to the necessity of a hearing in advance of tonight’s
meeting.
Therefore, I deny the request for a hearing on the merits today and order the
parties to confer and establish a case schedule.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
/s/Tamika Montgomery-Reeves
Vice Chancellor
TMR/jp
4
Pl.’s Mot. for Injunctive Relief 4.
3