Wu v. Delaware Technical Community College

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CHENMOU WU, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. N21C-07-045 EMD
)
DELAWARE TECHNICAL )
COMMUNITY COLLEGE, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER (i) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR A MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT AND (ii) PROVIDING LEAVE TO AMEND
Upon consideration of the Complaint; Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the
Alternative Motion for a More Definite Statement (the “Motion”) filed by Defendant Delaware
Technical Community College (“DTCC”); Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Evidence to Defendant and White
and Williams LLP (the “Response”) filed by Plaintiff Chenmou Wu (“Plaintiff”); State of
Delaware and Kathleen Jennings (collectively, “Defendants”); the arguments made in the Motion
and the Motion for Leave; the entire record of this civil proceeding; and the Court having
determined that no hearing on the Motion or the Response is necessary,
1. The Complaint seeks damages for a purported fraud. Plaintiff contends that
someone “who might work or study at DTCC used the college email system” to defraud Plaintiff
of $9,650. Plaintiff contends that he relied upon emails sent from dfears1@dtcc.edu and
kennethjones040214@gmail.com to become employed. Plaintiff then received a FedEx Express
Package with checks and (maybe) instructions. Plaintiff followed the instructions, cashed the
checks and then transferred money to “some places and someone.” Bank of America
subsequently informed Plaintiff that the checks had been returned due to insufficient funds.
Plaintiff ended up using Plaintiff’s own money to cover the transfers. DTCC subsequently
notified Plaintiff that dfears1@dtcc.edu was a fraudulent email address obtained during an email
security breach.
2. The Motion seeks to dismiss the Complaint for failing to state a fraud claim. In
the alternative, the Motion asks that the Court order Plaintiff for a more definite statement of the
allegations of fraud against DTCC. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. Plaintiff argues that DTCC
should have been more responsive to Plaintiff’s inquires as to the dfears1@dtcc.edu email. In
addition, Plaintiff provides additional facts not otherwise contained in the Complaint.
3. Upon a motion to dismiss under Civil Rule 12(b)(6), the Court (i) accepts all well-
pleaded factual allegations as true, (ii) accepts even vague allegations as well-pleaded if they
give the opposing party notice of the claim, (iii) draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the
non-moving party, and (iv) only dismisses a case where the plaintiff would not be entitled to
recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances.1 However, the Court must
“ignore conclusory allegations that lack specific supporting factual allegations.”2
4. Under Civil Rule 9(b), a party must plead fraud and negligence with
particularity.3 “The purpose of [Rule 9(b)] is to apprise the adversary of the acts or omissions by
which it is alleged that a duty has been violated.”4 To plead fraud or negligence with the
particularity required by Rule 9(b), a party must include the “time, place, contents of the alleged
fraud or negligence, as well as the individual accused of committing the fraud” or negligence.5
1
See Central Mortg. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Capital Holdings LLC, 227 A.3d 531, 536 (Del. 2011); Doe v.
Cedars Academy, No. 09C-09-136, 2010 WL 5825343, at *3 (Del. Super. Oct. 27, 2010).
2
Ramunno v. Crawley, 705 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Del. 1998).
3
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 9(b).
4
Mancino v. Webb, 274 A.2d 711, 713 (Del. Super. 1971).
5
See TrueBlue, Inc., v. Leeds Equity Partners IV, LP, C.A. No. N14C-12-112 WCC CCLD, 2015 WL 5968726, at *6
(Del. Super. Sept. 25, 2015) (quoting Universal Capital Mgmt., Inc. v. Micco World, Inc., C.A. No. N10C-07-039-
RRC, 2012 WL 1413598, at *2 (Del. Super. Feb. 1, 2012)).
2
5. Plaintiff’s claim appears to be a claim for fraudulent inducement. To prove
fraudulent inducement, a plaintiff must show:
(1) a false representation, usually one of fact . . .; (2) the defendant's knowledge or
belief that the representation was false, or was made with reckless indifference to
the truth; (3) an intent to induce the plaintiff to act or to refrain from acting; (4) the
plaintiff's action or inaction taken in justifiable reliance upon the representation;
and (5) damage to the plaintiff as a result of such reliance.6
In Delaware, there are three types of fraud: “(1) false statements represented as truth; (2) active
concealment of facts which prevents the other party from discovering them; and (3) silence in the
face of a duty to speak.”7 “Under Delaware law, to establish a claim of fraud or negligent
misrepresentation, the plaintiff must demonstrate justifiable reliance on false representations
made by the defendant.”8
6. The Court will grant the Motion for two reasons. First, the Complaint fails to
meet the pleading requirements of Civil Rule 9. Plaintiff fails to identify the person or persons at
DTCC that made material misrepresentations to Plaintiff. Moreover, Plaintiff does not plead
justifiable reliance. In fact, the Response seems to allege new facts that demonstrate that
Plaintiff should have known that the correspondence with dfears1@dtcc.edu and
kennethjones040214@gmail.com were part of an independent fraud not involving DTCC—e.g.,
one email contained references to both “Chippewa Community College” and “Job Placement &
Student Services, Delaware Technical Community College.” Second, the Response seems to
supplement the record with facts not contained in the Complaint. Plaintiff could potentially use
these facts to supplement the allegations contained in the Complaint. Alternatively, Plaintiff
might seek to plead a cause of action other than fraud like negligence.
6
Hauspie v. Stonington Partners, Inc., 945 A.2d 584, 586 (Del. 2008) (quoting Gaffin v. Teledyne, Inc., 611 A.2d
467, 472 (Del.1992)).
7
DRR, L.L.C. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 949 F. Supp. 1132, 1137 (D. Del. 1996).
8
Vichi v. Koninklijke Philips Elecs., 85 A.3d 725, 775 (Del. Ch. 2014).
3
7. Based on the “Questions” presented in the Response, the Court believes that
Plaintiff is contending that DTCC’s purported silence in failing to respond to inquiries
constituted fraud in a situation where DTCC remained silent “in the face of a duty to speak.”
However, the Court is unclear as to the fraud purportedly committed by DTCC or what duty
DTCC owed to Plaintiff. The Complaint clearly pleads fraud as to dfears1@dtcc.edu and
kennethjones040214@gmail.com but those are third parties and not DTCC.
8. The Court is granting the Motion. The Court will allow Plaintiff leave to amend
the Complaint. The Court has provided Plaintiff with the requirements of Civil Rule 9 and the
elements of fraud. Plaintiff may be in possession of more facts that can be alleged to more
specifically plead why DTCC is responsible for the fraud committed on Plaintiff by
dfears1@dtcc.edu and kennethjones040214@gmail.com or an alternative theory based in
negligence or alike.
9. The Court will give Plaintiff thirty (30) days to amend the Complaint. Failure to
amend the Complaint may result in this civil action being dismissed without further notice from
the Court.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons stated herein, the Motion is
GRANTED, and that Plaintiff must file an amended Complaint within thirty (30) days that
meets the pleading standards of Civil Rule 9.
Dated: January 13, 2022
Wilmington, Delaware
/s/ Eric M. Davis
Eric M. Davis, Judge
cc: File&ServeXpress
Chenmou Wu (by mail)
4