IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

HECTOR HERRERA DELEON
, ) ) Plaintiff, ) )

v. ) C.A. No. S23 C

- 0 1

- 00 3 RHR ) DENNIS L. SMITH
, ) ) Defendant. )

Submitted: March 30
, 2023 Decided: April 3 , 2023

Upon Defendant ’ s Recent Filing in this Case
,

DENIED

.

ORDER

After ignoring the proceedings and evading service of any documents in this
ejectment action
, D efendant, Dennis Smith, has copied this court on a voluminous

document that appears to be a complaint in federal court, but was apparently never

filed there (the “Filing”)

. Plaintiff’s counsel is concerned that the Filing could be a
motion to reargue or a motion for relief under Rule 60(b) and has asked f or confirmation that this court’s March 3, 2023 Order granting the ejectment remains

final. To the extent that the F iling constitutes a motion for relief in the present case,

it is DENIED for the following reasons:2

1. The case before the court is an ejectmen t action filed by Hector Herrera

De L eon (the “Plaintiff”), in which he seeks to eject Dennis Smith (“Smith”) from

property that Plaintiff recently purchased at 60 Honolulu Road in Frankford,
Delaware (the “Property”).

2. Despite the efforts of the sheriff an d a special process server, Smith

refused to acknowledge any notices from this court
, and Plaintiff filed a motion for

alternative service.

3. Smith did not appear for the rule to show cause hearing on the ejectment

action on March 3, 2023. After finding tha t Smith was aware of the proceedings, t he
court granted the motion for alternat ive service and the writ of ejectment. The

execution of the writ of possession is scheduled for April 5, 2023.

4. On or about March 15 , Smith submitted the Filing to the Superior Court
in New Castle County. The re was some confusion as to what the Filing was, but it
was eventually transferred to the Prothonotary’s Office in Sussex County and

docketed in this case on March 24 . Plaintiff filed a response on March 30.

5. The F ili ng does not clearly identify what exactly it is. It appears to be a
federal lawsuit directed against the Frankford Police Department and the President

of Frankford ’s Town Council . The caption indicates that various parties were copied

on the F iling, includ ing several judges of this court, the former owner of the
Property, the Plaintiff, and the Sheriff of Sussex County. However, court staff3

inquired with the federal district court and confirmed that the Filing has not been

submitted to that court.

6. The gist of the F iling alleges a criminal conspiracy against Smith by
various state and federal judges, court personnel, the former owner of the Property,
and Frankford town officials going back several decades.

7. To the extent the F iling is a motion for reargument under Superior
Court Civil Rule 59, it is untimely. 1 To the extent it is a request for relief under Rule
60(b), it fails to show any mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly

discovered evidence, fraud, or any other basis for relief. 2

8. The contents of the F iling simply reargue issues already considered by

this court when it previously order ed Smith’s ejectment in a case brought by the
former owner of the Property in Estate of James Godwin v. Smith
, 3 which was
affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court. 4

9. While the 2021 ejectment action was pending in this court, Smith
repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court. The federal court
summarily remanded the case back to this court by M emorandum O rder dated April
14, 2011. The court noted “Defendant’s repeat removal” of the case was “vexatious

1 “The motion for a new trial shall be served and filed not later than 10 days after the entry of judgment, or rendition of the verdict....” S uper. Ct. Civ. R. 59. 2 See Super. Ct. Civ. R. 60(b). 3 C.A. No. S09C

- 07

- 045 (Del. Super. May 21, 2021) (ORDER). 4 Smith v. Estate of James Godwin
, No. 201, 2021 (Del. Apr. 14, 2022) (ORDER).4

and an abuse of the legal process.” 5 It also informed Smith that it would not accept
any future notices of removal

.
10. It appears that Smith is cont inuing to abuse the legal process in the

present matter.
THEREFORE, Smith’s F iling in this court does not provide grounds to
modify or vacate this court’s March 3, 2023 Order ejecting Smith and his personal
belongings from the Property.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Robert H. Robinson, Jr. Robert H. Robinson, Jr., Judge

cc: File & ServeXpress

5 Estate of James Godwin v. Smith , Civ. No. 11

- 330

- SLR, at 2 (D. Del. Apr. 14, 2011) (MEMORANDUM ORDER).