Page 1 of 4

COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

KIM E. AYVAZIAN

MASTER IN CHANCERY

CHANCERY COURTHOUSE

34 The Circle

GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

AND

NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE

500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 11400

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19980-3734

March 11, 2016

Andrea C. Beck

260 Golden Plover Drive

Smyrna, DE 19977

Brian Thomas McNelis, Esquire

Young & McNelis

300 South State Street

Dover, DE 19901

RE: Andrea C. Beck v. John A. Greim c/o Bombay Woods Maintenance Corp.

C.A. No. 10223-MA

Dear Parties:

I have reviewed Pro Se Plaintiff Andrea C. Beck’s “Motion to Amend 

Opening Brief and Original Complaint” that was filed today. The timing of Ms. 

Beck’s motion to amend is unusual, to say the least. Her original complaint, 

purporting to seek enforcement of a deed restriction under 10 Del. C. § 348, was 

filed on October 10, 2014.1 On May 20, 2015, I approved Ms. Beck’s application 

to proceed in forma pauperis.

2

 Prior to that time, however, Beck had moved for a 

 

1 Docket Item (“DI”) 1. 

2 DI 34. 
Page 2 of 4

cease and desist order,3and had started to file numerous praecipes for subpoenas, 

including subpoenas for the production of accounting records, tax records and 

insurance records of Defendant Bombay Woods Maintenance Corporation, to 

which Defendants objected.

4

 Beck also moved for advanced attorney’s fees and 

expenses,

5 which I denied because she was not represented by counsel, but I 

overruled Defendants’ objection to her discovery requests, and ordered their 

production.

6

 

Defendants produced some records to Beck, but on October 6, 2015, Beck 

moved for contempt to enforce a Court Order, which was opposed by Defendants, 

who requested a teleconference for oral argument and to review the pending 

requests for records and subpoenas. 7In response, Beck sent the Court a letter 

listing the matters that she wanted to be considered during the teleconference.8 

After reviewing Beck’s letter, it became apparent to me that Beck’s complaint was

not seeking enforcement of a deed restriction, but instead was a derivative claim on 

behalf of Bombay Woods Maintenance Corporation. Because a derivative plaintiff 

seeking to enforce a right of the corporation must be represented by counsel, I 

dismissed Beck’s in forma pauperis derivative claim and her associated hate 

 

3 DI 21.

4 DI 36, 42, 43, 47, 56 

5 DI 38.

6 DI 49, 51. 

7 DI 55, 57. 
Page 3 of 4

crimes/harassment claims as legally frivolous under 10 Del. C. § 8803(b) in a draft 

report issued on November 4, 2015.9 Beck filed an exception to my draft report.10 

Her opening brief in support of her exception was dated November 25, 2015.11 

None of her arguments were relevant to my decision and, therefore, I adopted my 

draft report as my final report on February 22, 2016.12 Beck filed a notice of 

exception to my final report,13 and her exception is currently pending before Vice 

Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves.

Now, nearly a year and a half after she filed her original complaint, Beck is 

seeking to amend her complaint. Under Court of Chancery Rule 15(a), a party 

may amend a party’s pleading after a responsive pleading has been served “only by 

leave of Court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely 

given when justice so requires.” 14 Beck has failed to assert any grounds for her 

motion; instead, she simply quotes from two previously-filed documents in this 

case and refers to my final report of February 22, 2016. After reviewing Beck’s 

motion, it is unclear to me what reasons she has, if any, for seeking to amend her 

complaint and opening brief. Furthermore, Beck has already taken exception to 

 

8 DI 58-59.

9 DI 60.

10 DI 61.

11 DI 63. The opening brief was actually filed on December 3, 2015, but served on 

Defendants on November 25, 2015, according to the certificate of service..

12 DI 71.

13 DI 72. 
Page 4 of 4

my final report. Under Rule 144, the Vice Chancellor will conduct a de novo

review of my decision to dismiss Beck’s in forma pauperis complaint. Therefore, 

justice does not require that leave be given to Beck to amend her original 

complaint and opening brief.

For the reasons stated above, I recommend that the motion be denied. I am 

waiving a draft report and issuing this recommendation as my final report. I refer 

the parties to Rule 144 for the process of taking exception to a Master’s Final 

Report. 

Respectfully,

/s/ Kim E. Ayvazian

Kim E. Ayvazian

Master in Chancery

KEA/kekz

 

14 Ct. Ch. R. 15(a).