IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

TRUIST BANK, formally known as ) Branch Banking and Trust Company, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) C.A. NO . N23C

- 02

- 243 DJB v. ) ) JOSEPH B. ELAD, ) Defendant. )

Submitted: N ov ember 13 , 2023 Decided: December 11 , 2023 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR INJU NCTION

AND DISQUALIFI CATION
This 11 th day of December , 2023, upon consideration of Defendant Joseph B. Elad’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Injunction and Disqualification , 1 t he record of this civil action (“Ejectment Action”); and the record of the related Sci Fa Sur Mortgage Action (the “Foreclosure Action”), 2 it appears to the Court that:
1. On September 8, 2021, this Court entered judgment against Defendant Joseph B. Elad (“Defendant”) in the Foreclosure Action. 3
2. Defendant unsuccessfully moved to stay and vacate the judgment in the Foreclosure Action on numerous occasions. 4

1 N23C

- 02

- 243 DJ B

- D.I. D. I. 37, 38; 47

. 2 N17L

- 06

- 100 EMD. 3 N17L

- 06

- 100 EMD

- D.I. 50, 53, 82. 4 N17L

- 06

- 100 EMD

- D.I. 53, 57, 59, 64, 73

- 74.3. On March 8, 2022, 2700 Philadelphia Pike, Claymont, DE (the

“Property”) was purchased at Sheriff Sale by Plaintiff. 5
4. Following the sale, Defendant filed multiple amended counterclaims against Plaintiff alleging lack of due process, fraud, conspiracy, an d judicial misconduct, among other theories. 6 On June 30, 2022, the Court dismissed Defendant’s counterclaims with prejudice, noting the time to file such counterclaims expired under Rule 13 of the Delaware Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. 7 Not ably, Defendant’s counterclaims generally reasserted previously denied claims seeking to vacate or stay the Sheriff’s Sale. 8 Defendant continued to file repetitive motions, which led the Court to reject future filings from Defendant without leave of the Court

. 9
5. After the conclusion of the Foreclosure Action, Defendant continued to occupy the Property, prompting Plaintiff to file the instant Ejectment Action on February 28, 2023. 10
6. On March 24, 2023, the Court issued a Rule to Show Cause, to wh ich Defendant responded on April 25, 2023. 11 That same day, Defendant filed a host

5 N17L

- 06

- 100 EMD

- D.I. 80. 6 N17L

- 06

- 100 EMD

- D.I. No. 77

- 78, 81, 86, 90. 7 N17L

- 06

- 100 EMD

- D.I. 82. 8 N17L

- 06

- 100 EMD

- D.I. 53, 59, 64. 9 D.I. 95. In so deciding, the Court determined the repetitive filings were frivolous. 10 N23C

- 02

- 243 DJ B

- D.I. 1. 11 N23C

- 02

- 243 DJ B

- D.I. 3, 9.of counterclaims against Movants, which largely seek to relitigate issues

considered and denied by this Court in the Foreclosure Action. 12 On May 30, 2023, Movants moved to dismis s the counterclaims. 13 Tha t motion was granted and the counterclaim s were dis missed. 14 The W rit of Ejectment/Possession requested in the initial Complaint was then Ordered. 15 The Court , however, declined to award costs to Plaintiff , despite the numerous attempts made to evade the legal process by Defendant by means of contin uous, legally baseless filings. 16
7. Defendant filed a Motion to Reopen 17 the e jectment action , which wa s denied. 18 Defendant also filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Writ of Mandamus. 19
Both of which were also denied. 20
8. Defendant filed t he instant Motion for Recusal and Dismissal of the prior Court Orders and a de mand to “ hear h abeas corpus ” on November 3, 2023, and they were doc keted on November 6, 2023. Defendant supplemented th ese motions on November 13, 2023, including a request fo r an immediate injunction. 21
Th e basis for th is motion lies in the fact that Defendant attempted to file a

12 N23C

- 02

- 243 DJ B

- D.I. 10. 13 N23C

- 02

- 243 DJ B

- D.I. 20. 14 N23C

- 02

- 243 DJ B

- D.I. 35. 15 N23C

- 02

- 243 DJ B

- D.I. 44. 16 N23C

- 02

- 243 DJ B

- D. I. 35. 17 N23C

- 02

- 243 DJ B

- D. I. 37

. 18 N23C

- 02

- 243 DJ B

– D. I. 45. 19 N23C

- 02

- 243 DJ B

- D .I. 42. 20 N23C

- 02

- 243 DJ B

– D. I. 46. 21 N23C

- 02

- 243 DJ B

– D. I. 37, 38; 47.counterclaim to the ejectment action, accusing th is j udi cial officer of mi sconduct ,

requesting a sum of mone y for damages and thus no w alleges this judicial officer
h as a conflict of intere st as a result. Defendant additionally alleges that because this judicial officer d i smissed the Writ for Habeas Corpus , there was a violation of duties and recusal should follow. 22
9. W h en fac ed with a motion for recusal, a judge must undergo a two

s tep analysis in deciding whether to d i squalify him or herself. Fi rst, the j udicial offer must be “subjectively satisfied that he or she can pr oceed to hear the cause free of bias o r prejudic e con cerning [the] party. ” 23 Next, the jud icial officer must “examine objectively whether the circumst ances require recusal bec ause of an appearance of bias sufficient to cause doubt as to the judge ’s impartiality. ” The
Court is also to be mindful of the Del aware Ju dge ’ s Code of Conduct Rule 2.7(A), which ma ndates a judge ’ s duty to sit unless and until the jud ge is di squali fied or convinced of the need to re cu se. 10. Here, under the subjective analysis, this judicial officer is convi nced
of th e ability t o proceed with out bias or prejudice for Mr. Elad. The Court is

s ympath etic to his situation, however, has an ob ligation to follow the law. All of the pr evious d ecisions of this Court have been based solely upon the applicable law and not based on any precon ceived notions with respect to Mr. E lad, nor does the

22 Id. 23 Ga ttis v. State , Los v. Los , 595 A.2d 381 , 384

- 385 (Del. 1991)

.Court have any such notions. Second, after objectively evaluating the

circumstances, the Court does not find that there is the appearance of bias or impropriety sufficient to warrant recusal. The record of this case evidences that while Mr. Elad has not been successful on the substantive motions filed in defense of this ejectment action, Mr. Elad has prevailed in that 1 ) costs were not awar ded and that 2) Mr. Elad was given the opportunity to be heard for oral argument on his motions upon his request, although he u ltimately failed to appear.
11. The fact that this judicial officer was the subject of the attempted counterclaim did not and will not fa ctor into any de cision making of the C o urt, nor is there a ris k of that perception given the procedural history of decisions in this

case. 24
12. As a result, the Motion for Disqualification is DENIED

. 13. L ikewise, the Motion for Injunc tion is D ENIED as the basis for the requested inju nction cited is the request for this judicial officer ’ s re cusal.

24 The fact that the Court ’s November 3, 2023, Order notating security concerns as one of the reas ons that the Motion to Dismiss was to be held vir tually and not in a live courtroom was not ba sed upon any preconceived notions of the j udi cial of ficer, but was for a myria d of reasons, including the numerous filings in this case, the obvious emotional toll on Mr. Elad surrounding this litigation as evidenced by of his filings and staf

fing and logistical issues fa ced by the Court

.THEREFORE, Defend ants multiple Motions filed for Disqualification ,

Dismissal of the November 3, 2023, and the accompanying Motion for an Immediate Inj unction are DENIED

. IT SO ORDERED .

_____________________________ Danielle J. Brennan, Judge

Cc: Counsel via File&Serve Express Joseph E. Elad (via United States Postal Service)