Title: Tolliver v. QLarant Quality Solutions, Inc.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
M. DENISE TOLLIVER, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
QLARANT QUALITY 
SOLUTIONS, INC., RONALD G. 
FORSYTHE, JR., and DEBORAH 
KELLER, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 458, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. K21-06-040 
§                     
§                     
§ 
§                     
§ 
§                     
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   March 24, 2023 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 19, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and record on appeal,1 we conclude 
that the Superior Court’s November 21, 2022 opinion dismissing the complaint and 
December 12, 2022 order denying the untimely motion for reconsideration should 
be affirmed.  Even assuming that responses to her complaint were due by July 19, 
2021 as Tolliver contends, she has not shown that the Superior Court abused its 
 
1 The Court has not considered documents submitted by the plaintiff below-appellant M. Denise 
Tolliver after briefing was complete.  The documents were not available to the Superior Court in 
the first instance and are outside of the record on appeal.  Delaware Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Duphily, 
703 A.2d 1202, 1206 (Del.1997) (stating that “[i]t is a basic tenet of appellate practice that an 
appellate court reviews only matters considered in the first instance by a trial court” and striking 
materials from appendix that were outside of record on appeal). 
2 
 
discretion in denying her motion for default judgment.  The defendants below-
appellees timely removed the action to the United States District Court for the 
District of Delaware on July 21, 2021 and obtained an extension from the district 
court to file their response to the complaint.  Within two days of the docketing of the 
district court’s opinion and order remanding the matter in the Superior Court, the 
defendants filed a proposed briefing schedule for renewal of the motion to dismiss 
they had filed in the district court.  Given these circumstances and the strong policy 
favoring a decision on the merits over entry of default judgment, the Superior Court 
did not abuse its discretion in denying Tolliver’s motion for default judgment.  Nor 
did the Superior Court err in concluding that Tolliver’s complaint failed to establish 
that defendant below-appellee Deborah Keller was subject to personal jurisdiction 
in Delaware2 and failed to state a claim against defendant-below appellee QLarant 
Quality Solutions, Inc.    
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
2 Tolliver does not challenge the Superior Court’s holding that defendant below-appellee Ronald 
G. Forsythe, Jr. was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware.