COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

T AMIKA R. M ONTGOMERY

- R EEVES

V ICE C HANCELLOR Leonard L. Williams Justice Center 500 N. King Street, Suite 11400 Wilmington, Delaware 19801

- 3734 February 16, 2017

Samuel L. Guy, Esq. 1601 Concord Pike Suite 38C Wilmington, DE 19899 Steven J. Fineman, Esq. Blake Rohrbacher, Esq. Kevin M. Gallagher , Esq. Richards Layton & Finger , P.A. One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801

RE: Samuel L. Guy v. Luke Mette , et al. Civil Action No. 2017

- 0121

- TMR

Dear Counsel :
Today, on February 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint for injunctive
relief, a motion for injunctive relief, and a motion to expedit e. Plaintiff requests that

the motion to expedite be granted and a hearing to address the motion for injunctive

relief be held today in advance of a 6:30 p.m. W ilming ton City Council meeting

.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are improperly excluding his Prayer Resolution

from the agenda for the meeting and violating his constitutional rights by introducing
a competing Universal Prayer resolution.
In December 2016, Councilwoman Shabazz allegedly removed the traditional
Invocation and replaced it with a Silent Reflection as part of the City Council SessionGuy v. Mette , et al. C.A. No. 2017

- 0121

- TMR February 16, 2017 Page 2 of 3

2 Rules. Thereafter, the City Council allegedly has had a S ilent R eflection at all
subsequent me etings. Plaintiff purportedly announced his intention to introduce a
resolution to reinstate Prayer at a February 2, 2017 City Council Meeting. His

resolution, however, allegedly has not been approved “as to form,” while a separate

resolution to establis h Universal Prayer at the City Council meetings has been
approved and added to tonight’s agenda.
This Court does not set matters for an expedited hearing or permit expedited
discovery unless there is a showing of good cause why that is necessary. 1 In

de ciding whether to expedite proceedings, the Court must determine “whether in the
circumstances the plaintiff has articulated a sufficiently colorable claim and shown
a sufficient possibility of a threatened irreparable injury, as would justify imposing

on the defendants and the public the extra (and sometimes substantial) costs of an
expedited preliminary injunction proceeding.” 2 In order for the Court to grant a
motion for expedition, a plaintiff must allege “some imminent circumstance
demanding immediate action.” 3

1 Raymond Revocable Tr. v. MAT Five LLC , 2008 WL 2673341, at *2 (Del. Ch. June 26, 2008).

2 Giammargo v. Snapple Beverage Corp. , 1994 WL 672698, at *2 (Del. Ch. Nov. 15, 1994).

3 Casale v. Bare , 2009 WL 296262, at *2 (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2009).Guy v. Mette , et al. C.A. No. 2017

- 0121

- TMR February 16, 2017 Page 3 of 3

3 Plaintiff has not filed a brief in support of his mot ion for expedited
proceedings

. Instead, he refers the Court to the complaint
, but the complaint does
not describe any irreparable harm sufficient to justify a hearing on the merits today.
In his motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff states that irreparable harm will occur if
this motion is not granted today because “[a]fter this evening there will be no
appetite to address this particular issue.” 4 Plaintiff offers no explanation for wh at

this means or how it amounts to irreparable harm. Because Plaintiff has not
adequately alleged irreparable harm, I need not address the other issues regarding
expedition as they relate to the necessity of a hearing in advance of tonight’s
meeting.

Th erefore, I deny the request for a hearing on the merits today and order the
parties to confer and establish a case schedule.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
/s/Tamika Montgomery

- Reeves

Vice Chancellor
TMR/jp

4 Pl.’s Mot. for Injunctive Relief 4.