COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

TAMIKA R. MONTGOMERY-REEVES

VICE CHANCELLOR

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 expedite. 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. Wilmington 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 Session 
Guy 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 Silent Reflection at all 

subsequent meetings. 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 establish 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 

deciding 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 motion 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 what 

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. 

Therefore, 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.