1 Plaintiff’s Compl. ¶ 7.

2 Plaintiff’s Compl. ¶ 10. IN THE SUP

ERIOR COURT

OF THE STATE OF DE LAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY LEO R. MADDOX, : : Plaintiff, : C. A. No. K15 C-07-005 JJ C : v. : : STATE OF DELAWARE, : : Defenda nt. :

ORDER On this 17 th day of Novem ber, 2015, havin g considere d the State of Dela ware’s (“State’ s”) Motion to Dismiss Leo Maddox’s (“Plaintiff’s”) cla ims with prej udice, it appears t hat: 1. The Cou rt has revie wed an d con side red (1 ) the S tate’s Motionto Dism iss on the basi s of

Superior Court Rule

12(b)(6) , collate

ral estopp el, and th e doctrine of sovereign imm unity, (2) Plai ntiff’ s writte n response, and (3) the argum ent of t he parties as presented in Court on November 6, 2015. For the f ol lowing re asons, the State’ s Motion to D ismiss Plaintif f’s cla ims w ith prej udice is GRANTED

. 2. Plaintiff, in his complaint, alleges that the p ar ties involve d in a 2013 foreclosure action ac ted w ith t he i nte nt t o de ceiv e an d de frau d hi m. Spe cifi call y, Plaintiff alleges th at Citim

ortgage de frauded him w hen forec losing on his propert y from 2009-2012. 1 As allege d, the Sup erior Cou rt com mitte d fraud by

overlooking relevant precedent and lega

l principle s when dism

issing his 2013 suit. 23 Maddox v. CitiMorgage , Inc. , 2014 WL1155312 (Del. Super. Feb. 28, 2014), aff’d

Maddox v. CitiMortgage, Inc . , 2014 WL 2568046 (Del. June 5, 2014).

4 Spence v. Funk , 396 A.2d 967, 968 (Del. 1978).

5 Id. (citi ng Klein v. Sunbeam Corp. , 94 A.2d 385 (Del. 1952)).

6 Diamond S

tate Tel. Co . v. Univ. of Del. , 269 A.2d 52, 58 (Del. 1970).

7 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 9(b). 2 3. In this case, Plaintiff

seeks the s ame relief a s he did in the 2013 suit aga

inst Citimortgage. 3 Plain tiff’s appeal of that decis ion to the Delaware Suprem e Court was not successf ul. He n ow sues the

State of Delaw are, a

nd mor e specifi cally

the Court, for alleged fraud and n egligenc e in decidi ng the 20 13 case. 4. The State fi led a m

otion to dism

iss based on Superior

Court Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) , arguing that thePlaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be grante d. The S tate argu es that Pl ainti ff’ s claim is based on f

raud and negligence and that Pl aintiff di d not plead either matter with particula rity. The Sta te also argu es t hat thi s cl aim is barr ed b y the doc tri ne o f so ver eig n immun ity. Fin all y, the Stateargues that this suit is a “back door” appr

oach to appe aling a fin al decisio n in the pri or case and t herefore is c ollateral ly estopped. 5. When de ciding a m

otion to dism

iss un der Super

ior Court C ivil Rule 12(b)(6), all allegations in the complai nt must be accepted as true. 4 The test for sufficiency is a broad one: the com plaint wil l survive th e moti on to dismis s so long
as “a plaintiff may recover under any reasonably concei vable se t of circumstances susceptible

of proof un der thecomplaint.” 5 Stated di fferent ly, a compl aint will

not be dism issed unless it clear

ly lac ks factua

l or legal meri t. 6 6. Moreover , allega

tions of fr aud must be p led with part icu lari ty. 7 This m eans thatthe "m

ere use of the word ‘ fraud’ or its equiv alent is not asufficiently particular8 Halpern v. Barran , 313 A.2d 139, 143 (Del. Ch. 1973).

9 Plaintiff’s Compl. ¶ 14.

10 M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v. Le Beau , 7 37 A.2d 5 13, 520 (Del. 1999), as modified on denial of reargument (May 27, 1999).

11 Maddox , 2014 WL 1155312, at *2.

12 Maddox , 2014 WL 2568046, at *1. 3 statem ent of thecircumstances relied upon". 8 In this case, Plaintif f seeks r eturn of hi s property sold at

asheriff’s sale

because h e alleges the Court’ s actions in deciding a
casein 2013 constituted fraud. 9 Merely stating that actions taken by an entity were fraudulen t or negli gent does not meet the requ ired stand ard of plead ing. 7. The State also correctly a rgues that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the claim at issue. “Pur suant to the doc trine of c ol lateral estoppel, if a court has decided an issue of fact necessary to its judgm ent, thatdecision

preclude s re-liti gation of the issue in

a suit on a d

iffere nt cause of

action invol ving a part

y to the first case.” 10 The c ase at bar

is an atte mpt to a

ppeal the previous order of this Court in favor of Defendant Citimortgage by red irecting the suit aga inst the Sta

te. The do ct rine of collate

ral estopp el include s a bar aga inst reliti gating the s ame issue against adi ffe ren t p art y if t hat cla im co ul d h ave bee n ra is ed a t th e ti me of the initial action. Plaintif

f, afte r this Court’s p revious order in fav or of Citi mortg age, fil ed a motion for reargument whi ch wa s den ied. 11 Plaintif f then fil ed an appea

l to the DelawareSuprem

e Court, which subse quently affirm ed thedecision of

this Court. 12 Plaintiff exhausted his appeal rights regardin g this fore closure m atter and the issue has already been litigate d. For this additio nal reason , the presen t claim is barred. 8. Finally , sovere ign imm unity ba rs Plainti f f ’s clai m aga

inst the Sta

te. “ The doctrine of soverei gn immunity, one long -recognize d at common law, provides that13 Marvel v. State , 2014 WL 7009516, at *3 (Del. Super. Dec. 8, 2014).

14 Hawkins v. Family Court of New Castle Cnty. , 2014 WL 6674293, at *1 (Del. Sup er. Oct. 7, 2014). 4 the State an d its instrum

entalitie s cannot be sue d withou t the Stat e's consent. The doctrine extends to employ ees of the Stateacting in th eir offi cial capa cities. The only wayin which this imm

unity may be waived is by an express act of the Delaw are General Assembly.” 13 To overc ome so vereign imm unity, a Plainti ff m

ust allege the absence of one or m

ore of thr ee elem ents, pur suant

to 10 D el. C. § 4001. Th ese elem ents are that

“(1) the action

was discr etionary in nature; (2) the

action was done in good fait h; [or] (3) the a ction was d one wi thout g ross or wanton negligence purs uant to 10 Del. C. § 4001.” 14 The Plainti ff has failed to allege a wa iver o f imm unityin this case, an d one does not exis t. Theref ore, this action is a

lso barre d by the doc tri ne o f so ver eig n immun ity. 9. In con clus ion, P lain tiff’s allegations are barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and sovereign imm unity, and Plaint

i ff also does not

plead fr aud or negligence with part icu lari ty. For these reasons, the Plaintiff’s claim s are dismissed withpre jud ice . Si nce th ese matt ers hav e be en l it ig ate d mu lt ip le t ime s, if Pl aintiff files a fu rtheraction invol ving allega tions rega rding the transaction a

t issue in thi s case, the Plaintif

f is here by prov ided notice

that the C ourt will

dismiss, sua sponte , such action. WHEREFORE , it is ordere d that the

State ’s Motion to D ismiss is GRANTED

. /s/Jeffrey J Clark Judge