Nichols Nursery Inc. v. Lobdell

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
NICHOLS NURSERY INC., D/B/A, )
NICHOLS EXCAVATION )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. N17C-05-001 ALR
)
SCOTT LOBDELL, BRIAN ELLIS, )
Individually and d/b/a DELAWARE )
SPORTS COMPLEX, LCC, )
DELAWARE SPORTS COMPLEX, )
LLC and DANIEL WATSON )
)
Defendants. )
Submitted: June 30, 2017
Decided: July 19, 2017
ORDER
Upon Defendant Scott Lobdell’s Motion to Dismiss
DENIED
Upon Defendant Delaware Sports Complex, LLC’s Motion to Stay
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART
Plaintiff Nichols Nursery, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) initiated this lawsuit on May 1,
2017, alleging breach of contract and several claims of tortious conduct.
Defendants Scott Lobdell and Brian Ellis are parties to this action in their capacity
as individuals, and as Delaware Sports Complex, LLC, a limited liability entity
formed by Defendants. Defendant Scott Lobdell is self-represented and has filed a
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in lieu of an answer. Defendant Brian
Ellis has not appeared in these proceedings.
On May 23, 2017, Defendant Delaware Sports Complex, LLC filed for
bankruptcy, and the proceedings before this Court have been automatically stayed
as against Defendant Delaware Sports Complex, LLC.1 Defendant Delaware
Sports Complex, LLC has now filed a Motion to Stay this cause of action in its
entirety. Plaintiff opposes Defendant Scott Lobdell’s Motion to Dismiss and
Defendant Delaware Sports Complex, LLC’s Motion to Stay.
First, Defendant Scott Lobdell’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted must be decided solely on the allegations set forth in
the complaint.2 The Court must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the
Complaint as true and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving
party.3 Factual allegations, even if vague, are well-pleaded if they provide notice
of the claim to the other party.4 The Court should deny the motion if the claimant
“may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of
1
See Super. Ct. Civ. R. 41(g).
2
Walls v. Williams, 2006 WL 1133563, at *1 (Del. Super. Mar. 28, 2006); Jackson
v. Fleming, 2005 WL 2090773, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr. 27, 2005).
3
Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Del. 1998); Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d
967, 968 (Del. 1978).
4
Spence, 396 A.2d at 968.
proof.”5 Upon accepting the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint as true with all
reasonable inferences made in favor of Plaintiff, the Court finds that there is a
reasonably conceivable set of circumstances under which Plaintiff could establish
Defendant Scott Lobdell’s liability to Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court declines to
dismiss the claims against Defendant Scott Lobdell as a matter of law.
Second, with respect to Defendant Delaware Sports Complex, LLC’s Motion
to Stay, the Court rejects Defendant Delaware Sports Complex, LLC’s contention
that filing for bankruptcy requires a stay of lawsuits against non-debtor entities or
persons. Furthermore, under the circumstances presented here, the Court declines
to exercise its discretion to stay this action as to the individual Defendants pursuant
to Superior Court Civil Rule 41(g). Instead, the Court will stay this action for 90
days to allow any persons who seek the protection of 11 U.S.C. § 362 to apply to
the United States Bankruptcy Court for relief. After 90 days, the stay will be lifted
and the action in this Court shall proceed against Defendants Scott Lobdell and
Brian Ellis as long as the United States Bankruptcy Court does not extend the
automatic stay to those persons.
NOW, THEREFORE, this 18th day of July, 2017, Defendant Scott
Lobdell’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED, and Defendant Delaware
5
Id.
Sports Complex, LLC’S Motion to Stay this action is hereby DENIED in part
and GRANTED in part. This action is hereby stayed for 90 days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Andrea L. Rocanelli
______________________________
The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli