Title: Meades v. Wilmington Housing Authority

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TIMOTHY J. MEADES, SR.,  
§ 
§ 
No.  240, 2006 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in and 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County in C.A.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 03C-05-013. 
WILMINGTON HOUSING 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
AUTHORITY and FRED 
 
§ 
PURNELL,  
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
§ 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 29, 2006 
Decided: 
December 28, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28th day of December 2006, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties 
and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The pro se plaintiff-appellant, Timothy J.  Meades, Sr., was formerly 
employed as a district supervisor with the defendant-appellee, Wilmington Housing 
Authority (“WHA”).1  WHA terminated Meades’ employment in 2001. 
                                                 
1 The defendant-appellee, Fred Purnell, is the Executive Director of the WHA. 
 
 
2 
(2) 
In 2003, Meades filed a complaint alleging defamation against WHA.  
The Superior Court dismissed Meades’ complaint on the basis that WHA was shielded 
from liability by a conditional privilege.  Meades filed an appeal.   
 
(3) 
On appeal, this Court reversed the Superior Court’s dismissal of Meades’ 
complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings.2  The Court held that the 
Superior Court erred when it ruled on the issue of WHA’s conditional privilege in the 
context of a motion to dismiss.  The Court noted that “[up]on a finding of conditional 
privilege, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show abuse of the privilege.  Whether a 
conditional privilege has been abused is ordinarily a question of fact.”3 
(4) 
On remand, the parties engaged in discovery.  Following the close of 
discovery, WHA filed a motion for summary judgment.  By memorandum opinion 
dated April 28, 2006, the Superior Court granted WHA’s motion.  The Superior Court 
concluded that Meades failed to establish that WHA had abused its conditional 
privilege.  This appeal followed. 
                                                 
2Meades v.  Wilmington Hous. Auth., 2005 WL 1131112 (Del.  Supr.). 
3Id. ¶ 11 (citations omitted). 
 
 
3 
(5) 
“A motion for summary judgment is properly granted ‘against a [party] 
who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element 
essential to the [party’s] case and upon which the [party] will bear the burden of proof 
at trial.’”4   Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of 
material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.5  This 
Court reviews a decision granting summary judgment de novo.6    
(6) 
Having carefully considered the parties’ briefs and thoroughly reviewed 
the record, the Court has determined that this appeal should be affirmed on the basis 
of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decision  granting summary judgment in favor 
of WHA.  It appears that Meades was afforded the opportunity through discovery to 
produce evidence demonstrating that WHA had abused its conditional privilege.  The 
Superior Court’s decision concluding that Meades’ efforts were unsuccessful and that 
summary judgment should be granted against him is amply supported by the record 
and is free from legal error. 
                                                 
4Reybold Group, Inc. v. Chemprobe Tech., Inc., 721 A.2d 1267, 1271 (Del. 1998) (quoting Celotex 
Corp. v.  Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). 
5Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56, 59 (Del.  1991). 
6Merrill v.  Crothall-American, Inc., 606 A.2d 96, 99 (Del.  1992). 
 
 
4 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice