Case Title: Robinson v. J.C. Penney Co. Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 49, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-07-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARSHA M. ROBINSON,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC., 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 49, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 05C-10-313 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 2, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 21, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 21st day of July 2009, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Marsha M. Robinson, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s January 23, 2009 order dismissing her complaint.  
The defendant-appellee, J.C. Penney Company, Inc., has moved to affirm 
the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face 
 
2 
of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and 
AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
The undisputed facts of record are that, on October 21, 2004, 
Robinson, accompanied by her two year-old son and her nineteen year-old 
daughter, walked out of J.C. Penney at the Christiana Mall, New Castle 
County, Delaware, and headed towards her car in the parking lot, when she 
was stopped by two security guards employed by J.C. Penney.  The guards 
asked Robinson if she had any merchandise from the store that had not been 
paid for and Robinson said yes.  The guards escorted Robinson and her 
children back into the store.  During an altercation between Robinson, her 
daughter and the guards inside the store, Robinson’s right arm was injured.  
An ambulance was called and Robinson was taken to the hospital, where her 
arm was placed in a cast.   
 
(3) 
On October 31, 2005, Robinson filed a personal injury 
complaint in the Superior Court against J.C. Penney, claiming that its 
security guards had negligently and/or willfully and wantonly caused her to 
sustain personal injuries and economic losses.  Following an arbitration 
hearing, written discovery, and depositions, the Superior Court issued a 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
3 
scheduling order on August 8, 2008.  The scheduling order required 
Robinson to identify her trial experts on or before September 8, 2008.   
 
(4) 
When Robinson did not identify her trial experts in accordance 
with the scheduling order, J.C. Penney filed a motion for summary 
judgment.  J.C. Penney argued that, because Robinson had not identified an 
expert to testify as to the standard of care applicable to security guards, she 
would be unable to present a prima facie case at trial.  Because Robinson’s 
attorney had withdrawn from representing her, she requested the Superior 
Court to postpone the hearing on the motion so she could locate another 
attorney.  By the time of the re-scheduled hearing on January 23, 2009, 
Robinson had not found counsel to represent her and had not filed a response 
to the motion.  The Superior Court then granted J.C. Penney’s motion for 
summary judgment. 
 
(5) 
In this appeal, Robinson claims that the Superior Court’s 
dismissal of her complaint constituted an abuse of discretion.    Robinson 
also claims that, because her counsel acted unethically when he withdrew 
from representing her, she cannot be blamed for her failure to respond to the 
 
4 
motion for summary judgment.  Finally, Robinson claims a number of 
constitutional violations.2   
 
(6) 
It is settled law in Delaware that the standard of care applicable 
to a professional can be established only through expert testimony.3  
Moreover, a motion for summary judgment will be granted where, viewing 
the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the moving 
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.4  The Superior Court, in its 
discretion, provided Robinson with an extension of time in which to identify 
an expert and respond to J.C. Penney’s motion for summary judgment.  
However, because Robinson ultimately failed to identify an expert to testify 
regarding the standard of care applicable to security guards and failed to 
respond to the motion for summary judgment, the Superior Court had no 
choice but to grant the motion.5       
 
(7) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
                                                 
2 Because Robinson’s two latter claims were not fully addressed by the Superior Court, 
we decline to address them for the first time in this appeal.  Supr. Ct. R. 8. 
3 Seiler v. Levitz Furniture Co. et al., 367 A.2d 999, 1008 (Del. 1976). 
4 Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680-81 (Del. 1979). 
5 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c); Wahle v. Medical Center of Delaware, Inc., 559 A.2d 1228, 
1232-33 (Del. 1989). 
 
5 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that J.C. Penney’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice