1

 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(1) states:

Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a

claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the

responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses

SUPERIOR COURT

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

WILLIAM L. WITHAM, JR. KENT COUNTY COURT HOUSE

 RESIDENT JUDGE 38 THE GREEN

 DOVER, DELAWARE 19901

April 26, 2016

Nicholas H. Rodriguez, Esquire

Schmittinger and Rodriguez, P.A.

414 South State Street

Dover, Delaware 19901

Patrick C. Gallagher, Esquire

Curley Dodge & Funk, LLC

250 Beiser Boulevard, Suite 202

Dover, Delaware 19904

Re: Nazim Ameer v. Mary Melvin & Christy Reynolds

C.A. No. K16C-01-021 WLW

Dear Counsel:

Before the Court are motions to dismiss brought by Defendant Mary Melvin

and Defendant Christy J. Reynolds (collectively, “Defendants”). The Defendants

seek to dismiss the complaint of Nazim Ameer pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court finds

that Dr. Ameer is seeking an equitable remedy that is not within this Court’s

jurisdiction. For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss this claim for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(1),1 and
Nazim Ameer v. Mary Melvin & Christy Reynolds

C.A. No. K16C-01-021 WLW

Page 2

may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: (1) Lack of jurisdiction over

the subject matter.

schedule a calendar conference to discuss the remaining issues.

Dr. Ameer is the owner of the Delaware Institute of Pain Management (“the

Institute”). Ms. Melvin was employed by the Institute until she was terminated on

September 25, 2015. Ms. Reynolds was an independent contractor who worked for

the Institute on a contract basis but had not been engaged by the Institute since

September 15, 2015. On October 29, 2015, Ms. Reynolds allegedly used the

Institute’s letterhead to write a letter to Del-One Federal Credit Union. Claiming to

be the office manager, Ms. Reynolds allegedly wrote that Ms. Melvin would return

to work at the Institute on November 2, 2015 and would resume her normal work

schedule. Dr. Ameer has claimed he was damaged because he could be responsible

by implication for the false statements made on his letterhead, and his license to

practice medicine in Delaware could therefore be adversely affected. 

The Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss or for a more definite

statement. The Defendants claim there can be no action because Dr. Ameer has

suffered no damages. The damages claimed are speculative in that Dr. Ameer claims

he could be subject to liability for allegedly false statements, or he could face

discipline under the Medical Malpractice Act for unprofessional conduct.

A hearing on the motions was held on April 8, 2016. As the hearing

progressed, it became apparent that Dr. Ameer filed this complaint in order to prevent

the Defendants from using his letterhead in the future. Counsel for Dr. Ameer stated

that he did not know of any way to stop the letter from being circulated in the future
Nazim Ameer v. Mary Melvin & Christy Reynolds

C.A. No. K16C-01-021 WLW

Page 3

2

 The letter from counsel for Dr. Ameer to this Court references the letter at issue in this case;

however, the Court also assumes that Dr. Ameer would be interested in resolving any issue

concerning the improper use of his name or the name of the Institute by either Defendant in the

future as well. 

without filing suit, and that was the reason suit was filed. The Court noted that such

a remedy would be equitable in nature and that it did not have jurisdiction to issue an

equitable order. The Court suggested the case may be proper in Chancery Court. In

a subsequent letter to the Court, counsel for Dr. Ameer stated that he is not looking

for damages. Rather, he is seeking a way to protect his client from having the letter

circulated in the future and is seeking responsibility by the Defendants for future

damages.2 Based on this rationale, counsel for Dr. Ameer agreed that a transfer to

Chancery Court may be appropriate. The Defendants oppose transfer by arguing that

Dr. Ameer would still be unable to assert a claim that the Chancery Court might

recognize. The Defendants believe a declaratory judgment by this Court would serve

the same purpose as an injunction issued from Chancery Court. The Defendants also

argue that transfer to Chancery Court would incur additional andunnecessary defense

costs.

Dr. Ameer has not suffered any cognizable damages, yet he should be free to

carry on his life without fear that the Defendants would allegedly once again use his

letterhead to further personal goals. However, a declaratory judgment is not

appropriate in this case. In Rollins Intern., Inc. v. International Hydronics Corp., the

Delaware Supreme Court noted that “[w]hile it is true that courts will not entertain

suits seeking an advisory opinion or an adjudication of hypothetical questions, the

courts do entertain declaratory judgment actions where the alleged facts are such that
Nazim Ameer v. Mary Melvin & Christy Reynolds

C.A. No. K16C-01-021 WLW

Page 4

3

 Rollins Intern., Inc. v. International Hydronics Corp., 303 A.2d 660, 662 (Del. 1973). 

4

 10 Del. C. § 1902 states in pertinent part:

No civil action, suit or other proceeding brought in any court of this State shall

be dismissed solely on the ground that such court is without jurisdiction of the

subject matter, either in the original proceeding or on appeal. Such proceeding

may be transferred to an appropriate court for hearing and determination,

provided that the party otherwise adversely affected, within 60 days after the

order denying the jurisdiction of the first court has become final, files in that

court a written election of transfer, discharges all costs accrued in the first court,

and makes the usual deposit for costs in the second court. All or part of the

papers filed, or copies thereof, and a transcript of the entries, in the court where

the proceeding was originally instituted shall be delivered in accordance with the

rules or special orders of such court, by the prothonotary, clerk, or register of that

court to the prothonotary, clerk or register of the court to which the proceeding

a true dispute exists and eventual litigation appears to be unavoidable.”3 In the case

at bar, it does not appear that litigation is unavoidable. Dr. Ameer may suffer

damagesif the Credit Union relied on the letter, or may suffer damagesif the letter is

circulated in the future. However, there has been no showing that the Credit Union

relied on the letter, and the letter may not be used in the future. Litigation is therefore

not unavoidable. Moreover, the parties are not seeking a declaration of rights or legal

relationships. Dr. Ameer is simply seeking to prevent the Defendants from acting in

the future. 

Based on statements made by counsel for Dr. Ameer at the hearing, and his

subsequent letter stating that Dr. Ameer is not seeking damages, the Court finds Dr.

Ameer seeks an equitable remedy that is within the sole jurisdiction of the Court of

Chancery. The Court will therefore dismiss this case for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to Delaware Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Pursuant to 10

Del. C. § 1902,4 Dr. Ameer will have sixty days to file the appropriate documents to
Nazim Ameer v. Mary Melvin & Christy Reynolds

C.A. No. K16C-01-021 WLW

Page 5

is transferred. . . .

transfer this case to the Court of Chancery. Given the decision of this Court, the

motion to dismiss pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) is moot. The Court

will schedule a calendar conference to discuss remaining issues such as Ms. Melvin’s

counterclaim. The parties should be prepared to discuss the procedural way forward

with regard to Ms. Melvin’s counterclaim, and whether this case is suitable for

mediation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ William L. Witham, Jr. 

Resident Judge

WLW/dmh