IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SHARON DELUCA and )

DONALD DELUCA, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) C.A. No.: N17C-06-209 ALR

)

HYATT CORPORATION; )

HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION; )

HYATT ARUBA N.V.; and )

ARUBA BEACHFRONT RESORTS )

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, )

)

Defendants. )

Submitted: January 11, 2019

Decided: February 6, 2019

Upon Defendants’ Hyatt Corporation and Hyatt Hotels Corporation

Motion for Summary Judgment

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

ORDER

This is a personal injury case alleging a trip and fall incident. Upon 

consideration of the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Hyatt 

Corporation and Hyatt Hotels Corporation (“Moving Defendants”); the opposition 

thereto filed by Plaintiffs Sharon DeLuca and Donald DeLuca (“Plaintiffs”); the 

facts, arguments, and legal authorities set forth by the parties; the Superior Court 

Civil Rules; statutory and decisional law; and the entire record in this case, the Court 

hereby finds as follows:
2

1. On June 17, 2017, Plaintiffs initiated this negligence action against 

Moving Defendants, seeking to recover damages for injuries arising from a trip and 

fall incident that allegedly occurred on December 8, 2015, at the Hyatt Regency 

Aruba Resort Spa and Casino in Palm Beach, Aruba (“Resort”). With leave of the 

Court and no opposition by Moving Defendants, Plaintiffs filed an Amended 

Complaint on December 18, 2018, adding Hyatt Aruba N.V. and Aruba Beachfront 

Resorts Limited Partnership as additional defendants. 

2. Plaintiffs allege that Sharon DeLuca suffered significant injuries which 

required surgery when she tripped and fell as a result of a dangerous defect at the 

Resort. Plaintiffs are seeking damages for personal injuries, pain and suffering, 

medical expenses, lost wages and loss of consortium.

3. On December 13, 2018, Moving Defendants filed the Motion for 

Summary Judgment that is currently before the Court. Moving Defendants argue 

that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that Moving 

Defendants are parent companies that cannot be held liable for the acts or negligence 

of their subsidiaries.

4. On January 11, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the 

Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that the motion is premature as the 

record is incomplete and discovery is ongoing, especially with respect to the parent 

and subsidiary relationships.
3

5. Summary judgment may be granted only where the moving party can 

“show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party 

is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”1 The moving party bears the initial 

burden of proof and, once that is met, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to 

show that a material issue of fact exists.2 At the motion for summary judgment 

phase, the Court must view the facts “in the light most favorable to the non-moving 

party.”3 Summary judgment is only appropriate if Plaintiffs’ claims lack evidentiary 

support such that no reasonable jury could find in their favor.4 Summary judgment 

will not be granted if the record indicates that there is a material fact in dispute, or if 

further inquiry into the facts would be appropriate in order to clarify the application 

of the law to the circumstances.5

6. The Court is not satisfied at this early stage that Moving Defendants are 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. An unresolved issue of material fact remains

as to Moving Defendants’ relationships to the other parties named as defendants in 

this matter.

 

1 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56.

2 Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680-81 (Del. 1979).

3 Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355, 1364 (Del. 1995).

4 Hecksher v. Fairwinds Baptist Church, Inc., 115 A.3d 1187, 1200–05 (Del. 2015); 

Edmisten v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2012 WL 3264925, at *2 (Del. Aug. 13, 2012).

5 Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 470 (Del. 1962); Bracken-Bova v. Liberty 

Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2011 WL 5316600, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 7, 2011).
4

NOW, THEREFORE, this 6th day of February, 2019, the Motion for 

Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Hyatt Corporation and Hyatt Hotels 

Corporation is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Andrea L. Rocanelli

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli