Title: Beck v. Brady

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
LEONARD H. BECK,                      
           
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
M. JANE BRADY, Attorney 
General, 
     
 
 
     
Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§
 
 
   No. 221, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   C.A. No. 03C-11-115 
                      
 
Submitted: July 27, 2004 
Decided: September 20, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 20th day of September 2004, 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, Leonard H. Beck, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s May 17, 2004 order dismissing his complaint.  The defendant-
appellee, Attorney General M. Jane Brady, has moved to affirm the Superior 
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Beck’s opening 
brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and AFFIRM.   
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
 
-2-
 
(2) 
On November 13, 2003, Beck filed a complaint in the Superior Court 
alleging that the Attorney General had breached a contract with him, a Delaware 
taxpayer, to educate “defiant youth.”  Beck argued that, under her contractual 
obligations, the Attorney General must provide education and training for such 
“defiant youth” and requested that a separate school be built for them, according to 
specifications included in the complaint.   
 
(3) 
Having been served with the complaint, the Attorney General filed a 
motion for a more definite statement.2  A hearing on the motion was held on 
February 10, 2004 and the Superior Court granted the Attorney General’s motion.  
Beck did not appear for the hearing, but did subsequently file a pleading purporting 
to clarify his claims.  In March 2004 the Attorney General filed a motion to 
dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.3  At a hearing 
on the motion, with all parties present, the Superior Court granted the motion, 
finding that Beck had not demonstrated that he was entitled to any relief under the 
facts alleged in the complaint.4   
 
(4) 
The standards governing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 
claim are well-settled: a) all well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true;5 
                                                 
2 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(e). 
3 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b) (6). 
4 Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967, 973 (Del. 1978). 
5 Precision Air v. Standard Chlorine of Del., 654 A.2d 403, 406 (Del. 1995). 
 
 
-3-
b) even vague allegations are “well-pleaded” if they give the opposing party notice 
of the claim;6 c) the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-
moving party;7 and d) dismissal is inappropriate unless the plaintiff would not be 
entitled to recover “under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances 
susceptible of proof.”8 
 
(5) 
We have reviewed Beck’s complaint de novo.9  We agree with the 
Superior Court that, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Beck, he would 
not be entitled to recover “under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances 
susceptible of proof” and, therefore, his complaint was properly dismissed. 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Beck’s 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, clearly there 
was no abuse of discretion. 
 
 
 
                                                 
6 Id. 
7 Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Del. 1998). 
8 Kofron v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 441 A.2d 226, 227 (Del. 1982). 
9 Precision Air v. Standard Chlorine of Del., 654 A.2d at 406. 
 
 
-4-
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), the motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice