Case Title: Jones v. The Hertz Corporation and Citigroup Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 393, 2014

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2014-12-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GERALD JONES,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 393, 2014 
 
Plaintiff/Appellant-Below, 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
THE HERTZ CORPORATION and § 
C.A. No. N13A-07-006 
CITIGROUP INC. D/B/A 
 
§ 
CITIBANK,  
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Defendants/Appellees-Below, § 
 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 17, 2014 
Decided: 
December 2, 2014 
Corrected:   December 3, 2014 
 
Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 2nd day of December 2014, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the joint motion to affirm filed by the appellees, it appears to the 
Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Gerald Jones, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s July 8, 2014 decision affirming the Court of Common Pleas’ dismissal of 
Jones’ appeal de novo from a Justice of the Peace Court decision.  We conclude 
that the Superior Court’s judgment must be affirmed. 
2 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Jones sued The Hertz Corporation and 
Citigroup, Inc. d/b/a Citibank (hereinafter “Hertz”) in the Justice of the Peace 
Court seeking to recoup $13,938.00 for alleged fraudulent car rental charges.  
Hertz filed a counterclaim for $15,000.00.  After a trial, the Justice of the Peace 
Court ruled against Jones and in favor of Hertz on its counterclaim. 
(3) 
Jones filed an appeal de novo in the Court of Common Pleas.  Jones’ 
appeal consisted of a seven-count complaint against Hertz, seeking $313,978.00 in 
compensatory and punitive damages.  Hertz filed a motion to dismiss.  After a 
hearing, and in a ruling from the bench, the Court of Common Pleas dismissed the 
appeal under Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 72.3(f) for Jones’ violation of the 
“mirror image rule.”1 
(4) 
Jones appealed to the Superior Court.   Following briefing by the 
parties, the Superior Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Common Pleas.2  
This appeal followed. 
(5) 
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 of an orderly and logical deductive 
process.  Findings of the trial court that are supported by 
the record must be accepted by the reviewing court even 
                                
1 See Ct. Com. Pl. Civ. R. 72.3(f) (“An appeal to this Court that fails to . . . raise the same issues 
that were before the Court below shall result in a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.”).  
2 Jones v. The Hertz Corporation, 2014 WL 3401606 (Del. Super. Ct. July 8, 2014). 
3 
 
if, acting independently, it would have reached a contrary 
conclusion.  This Court applies the same standard of 
review to the Superior Court’s decision.3 
 
(6) 
Having reviewed the parties’ positions on appeal and the Superior 
Court record, we conclude that there is no basis for disturbing the factual findings 
of the Superior Court and no errors of law.   The Superior Court’s deductions and 
inferences are the product of a logical and deductive reasoning process.  Jones has 
failed to identify any factual findings or inferences made by the Superior Court that 
are clearly wrong, unsupported by the record or illogical.  In the absence of any 
legal error or abuse of discretion, the judgment of the Superior Court affirming the 
Court of Common Pleas’ dismissal of Jones appeal de novo must be affirmed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the joint motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                
3 Wright v. Platinum Fin. Serv., 2007 WL 1850904, at *2 (Del. June 28, 2007) (citing Baker v. 
Connell, 488 A.2d 1303, 1309 (Del. 1985); Levitt v. Bouvier, 287 A.2d 671, 673 (Del. 1972)).