IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CITIZENS AGAINST SOLAR ) POLLUTION, a D elaware unincorporated )

n onprofit association, DONALD LEE ) GOLDSBOROUGH, TRUSTEE UNDER ) REVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT OF ) DONALD LEE GOLDSBOROUGH ) DATED 12/22/10, and KELLIE ELAINE ) GOLDSBOROUGH, TRUSTEE UNDER ) REVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT OF ) KELLIE ELAINE GOLDSBOROUGH ) C.A. No. N23C

- 03

- 196 VLM DATED 12/22/10
, ) ) Plaintiff s, ) )

v. ) ) KENT C OUNTY, a political subdivision ) of the State of Delaware, KENT COUNTY ) LEVY COURT, the governing body of ) Kent County, FPS CEDAR CREEK ) SOLAR LLC, a Delaware limited liability )

c ompany, and THE PINEY CEDAR ) TRUST, JAMES C. KNOTTS, JR., ) CHERYL A. KNOTTS
, DE LAND ) HOLDINGS 1 LLC, a Delaware limited ) l iability company, AMY PEOPLES, ) TRUSTEE OF THE PINEY CEDAR ) TRUST, and RICHARD A. PEOPLES, ) TRUSTEE OF THE PINEY CEDAR ) TRUST, ) ) Defendant s. )

Submitted: July 18 , 2023 Decided: October 1 7 , 20232 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Richard L. Abbott, Esq., Abbott Law Firm, Hockessin , Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiffs Citizens Against Solar Pollution, Donald Lee Goldsborough, and Kellie Elaine Goldsborough.
Max B. Walton, Esq., Lisa R. Hatfield, Esq., and Erica K. Sefton, Esq., Connolly Gallagher LLP, Newark , Delaware, Attorneys for Defendants Kent County and Kent County Levy Court.
Richard A. Forsten, Esq., Wendie C. Stabler, Esq., and James D. Taylor, Jr.
, Esq., Saul Ewing LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendants FPS Cedar Creek Solar LLC, DE Land Holdings 1 LLC, The Piney Cedar Trust, James C. Knotts, Jr., Cheryl A. Knotts, Amy Peoples, Trustee of the Piney Cedar Trust, and Richard A. Peoples, T

rustee of the Piney Cedar Trust.

Medinilla, J.3 I. INTRODUCTION

T he Kent County Levy Court approved a conditional use permit application
filed by Defendant FPS Cedar Creek Solar, LLC
, to construct a solar farm near
property owned by members of Plaintiff Citizens Against Solar Pollutio n.
Challenging the grant of the permit, Plaintiffs f iled an action in the Court of
Chancery seeking injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment against the Levy
Court and Kent County as well as FPS, The Piney Cedar Trust, James C. Knotts
, Jr.,
Cheryl A. Knotts, DE Land Holdings 1 LLC, Amy Peoples and Richard A. Peoples,

Trustees of T he Piney Cedar Trust

. The Court of Chancery dismissed the case and
granted Plaintiffs leave to transfer the matter to this Court after determining that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was an adequate remedy at la w ;
namely
, review by common law writ of certiorari

.
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that sought declaratory judgment in

one count and certiorari review in another. Plaintiffs also filed a separate M otion

for Writ of Certiorari. All Defendants now move to dismiss all matters in their
entirety u nder Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below,

Defe ndants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED , in part, DENIED, in part.

Plaintiffs’ “ Motion ” for Certiorari is MOOT.4

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1

A. PARTIES

On January 25, 2022 2 , the Kent County Levy Court (“Levy Court”) approved
a conditional use permi t application filed by Defendant FPS Cedar Creek Solar
, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (“F reepoint ”) , to construct a solar farm
near property owned by members of Plaintiff Citiz ens Against Solar Pollution , a

D elaware Unincorporated Nonprofit Association ( together, “Plaintiffs”). 3

On March 25, 2022, Plaintiffs brought an action in the Court of Chancery
seeking a preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, and declaratory judgment
against all Defendants: the Levy Court and Kent County (the “County Defendants”)

as well as Freepoint , The Piney Cedar Trust, James C. Knotts
, Jr., Cheryl A. Knotts,
DE Land Holdings 1 LLC, Amy Peoples and Richard A. Peoples, Trustees of the
Piney Cedar Tr

ust (the “Freepoint Defendants”)

. 4

1 Unless otherwise noted, th is Court’s recitation is drawn from Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint ( “ Complaint ” ) and all documents the parties incorporated by reference. Am. Compl

. ( D.I

. 1 ) (“Am. Compl.” ) ; see In re Santa Fe Pac. Corp. S'holder Litig. , 669 A.2d 59, 69

– 70 (Del. 1995).
2 Although not disputed by the parties in this matter, Plaintiff s only cite to January 26, 2022, the date the Levy Court notified F reepoint that the c onditional u se permit a pplication had “allegedly been approved.” Am. Compl. ¶ 42. In the first responsive pleading, County Defendants cite to January 25, 2022, the date the Levy Court approved F reepoint’ s conditional use permit application. County Defs.’ Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Writ of Cert. ¶ 2 (D.I. 5) (“County Defs.’ Resp .”).
3 County Defs.’ Resp. ¶ 2.
4 Id

.5 B. PROCEDURAL POSTURE

1. The Court of Chancery Action 5

Plaintiffs filed first in the Court of Chancery on March 25, 2022

. 6 They
challenged the Levy Court’s approval of the conditional use permit 7 as invalid and
sought the following remedies: (1) a preliminary injunction preventing Freepoint
from commencing construction on the solar farm; (2) a permanent injunction barring
Freepoint from relying on the Levy Court’s approval; and (3) a declaratory judgment

regardi ng the legality of the Levy Court’s approval

. 8

On September 27, 2022, via a cross

- mo tion for summary judgment
, Defendants raised the issue of standing and cited support in D over Historical Society

v. City of Dover Planning Commission

. 9 T he Court of Chancery noted th e authority
implicated issues of subject matter jurisdiction, whe re the Delaware Supreme Court
explained that it is “well established that a writ of certiorari proceeding in the
Superior Court is the appropriate cause of action for determining whether, on the

5 Generally, citations regarding the Court of Chancery Action cite directly to the Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Transfer decided on February 24, 2023. Citizens Against Solar Pollution

v. Kent Cnty. , 2023 WL 2199646 (Del. Ch. Feb. 24, 2023) (“ Citizens Against Solar Pollution I ”). Otherwise, citations regarding the Court of Chancery Action cite to the Exhibits in the Amended Complaint.
6 Am. Compl. Ex. 4.
7 Delta Eta Corp. v. City of Newark , 2023 WL 2982180, at *1 n.1 (Del. Ch. Feb. 2, 2023) (“ Delta Eta ”) ; See 2 Patricia E. Salkin, American Law of Zoning § 14:1 (5th ed. 2008) (“The terms ‘special use permit,’ ‘special exception,’ ‘development permit,’ and ‘ conditional use permit’ are often used interchangeably.”)

. For the sake of clarity, this Court uses conditional use permit

. 8 Am. Compl. Ex. 4.
9 See Dover Historical Soc. v. City of Dover Planning Comm'n , 838 A.2d 1103 (Del. 2003).6

face of the record, the [agency] exceeded its powers or failed to conform to the
requirements of law.” 10 Accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to sub mit
supplemental briefing regarding subject matter jurisdiction. 11 The parties thereafter

alerted th e Court to the February 2023 decision in Delta Eta Corporation v. City of

Newark

. 12

On February 24, 2023, the Court, adopting the reasoning of Delta Eta , agreed

that, “unless the claimant demonstrates otherwise, a writ of certiorari provides an
adequate remedy at law to redress harm caused by a quasi

- judicial decision denying
a conditional use permit.” 13 Hol ding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
, the

Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice with leave to transfer the action to

this C ourt pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1902

. 14 In so doing, it noted Plaintiffs had an
adequate remedy at law, a writ of certiorar i

, and found that injunctive relief was not

proper

. 15 Recognizing Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding interim injunctive relief, th e

Court al so noted the status quo order was to remain in effect “until the earlier of
Plaintiffs’ election to transfer and 60 days from the date of this Order.” 16

10 Citizens Against Solar Pollution I
, 2023 WL 2199646, at *1 (quoting Dover Historical Soc

. v. City of Dover Planning Comm'n at 1106 ).

11 Citizens Against Solar Pollution I
, 2023 WL 2199646, at *1

. 12 Id . (citing Delta Eta , 2023 WL 2982180 , at *14) (holding that “the City Council acted in a quasi

judicial capacity in denying the Special Use Application. It follows that a writ of certiorari is available to Delta Eta.”).

13 Citizens Against Solar Pollution I
, 2023 WL 2199646, at *1

. 14 Id

. at *3

. 15 Id

. 16 Id

.7

2. This Action
On March 21, 2023, pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1902, Plaintiffs filed their
Amended Complaint in this Court and sought a declaratory judgment and certiorari

review. 17 On March 29, 2023, Plaintiffs also filed a “Motion” for Writ of Certiorari

and request ed a stay t o ensure that Defendants would not act upon the Levy Court’s
grant of the conditional use permit

. 18

On April 10, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel wrote to t his Court for direction
, stating
the parties were “at an impasse on how to proceed [procedurally] in this somewhat
unique case,” namely

, that Plaintiffs wished to resume litigation at the summary
judgment stage whereas Defendants planned to seek dismissal under Superior Court

Civil Rule 12(b) (6)

. 19

On April 24, 2023, t he Court held a status conference at which time the

Defendants confirmed their intent and sought leave to file a m otion to d ismiss the
Amended Complaint. 20 Plaintiffs wanted to brief what they considered issues
presented for the first time here

. 21 Concerned that Defendants would act upon the
Levy Court’s approval, despite the ongoing litigation, Plaintiffs requested a stay

. 22

17 See Am. Compl. 18 Pls.’ Mot. for Writ of Cert. ¶ 9 (D.I. 3) (“Pls.’ Mot

. for Writ of Cert

. ”).
19 Pls.’ Letter Req. Status Conference and Providing Orders and Decision for Ct.’s Reference ( D.I. 4 ) (“Pls.’ Letter”).
20 Parties’ Status Conference dated 4

- 24

- 2023 (D.I. 13) (“Status Conference”).
21 Id

. 22 Status Conference

.8

U pon agreement of all Defendants
, 23 t his Court allowed for the issuance of the writ

of certiorari , holding it in abeyance during the pendency of this ruling. 24 Common
sense suggested as much. 25

County Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint as
untimely and improper

. 26 Plaintiffs filed their an swering brief, 27 to which County

Defendants replied, 28 with Freepoint Defendants joining

. 29 Th is Court heard
argument thereafter, 30 and the matter is now ripe for decision.

23 Defs.’ Joint Letter to the Ct. (D.I. 14) (“Defs.’ Joint Letter”).
24 Ct.’s Letter to Counsel (D.I. 16) (“Letter to Counsel”).

25 Citizens Against Solar Pollution I , 2023 WL 2199646, at *3 . ( In the Chancery Action, the Court noted that Freepoint averred that it would “‘ def[y] logic ’ to think it would begin construction while its permit hangs in the balance.”)
26 County Def

s. ’ Mot

. to Dismiss Compl . ( D.I

. 17 ) (“County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Compl. ” ).
27 Pls.’ Answering B r. in Opp ’n to County Def s.’ Mot

. to Dismiss ( D.I

. 18 ) (“Pls.’ Answering Br. in Opp’n to County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss”).
28 County Defs.’ Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. t o Dismiss (D.I. 20) (“County Defs.’ Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. t o Dismiss”).
29 Freepoint Def

s.’ Joinder to County Defs.’ Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. t o Dismiss (D.I. 21) (“Freepoint Defs.’ Joinder to County Defs.’ Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. t o Dismiss”).
30 Judicial Action Form dated 7

- 18

- 2023 (D.I. 22).9 III. DELTA ETA

As t he Chancery Action had adopted the rationale of Delta Eta
, 31 the summary

below contextualize s the parties’ contentions

. Delta Eta, t he fraternity chapter’s housing corporation for Pi Kappa Alpha
, applied for a special use permit seeking to use a previously owned residence as the
chapter’s fraternity house in Newark, Delaware. 32 Under Newark’s city code,

special use permits can be issued for certain uses depending on the zoning of the

district. 33 T he Newark City Council denied the permit. 34

F ifty

- eight (58) days later
, counsel for Delta Eta (same counsel for Plaintiffs

here ) f iled an action in the Court of Chancery against the City and the C ouncil
members who had voted no on the special use permit. 35 Count I sough t a permanent
injunction prohibiting the City and Council members from relying on the special
permit denial and ma ndating that the special permit be approved. 36 Count II sought

31 Delta Eta , 2023 WL 2982180, at *14 ( explainin g that a writ of certiorari is an adequate legal remedy for challenging the quasi

- judicial denial of a special use permit.) On the same day as Delta Eta was decided
, the same Vice

- Chancellor also issued Middlecap Associates, LLC v. Town of Middletown
, 2023 WL 2981893, at *2 (Del. Ch. Feb. 2, 2023) (“My reasoning and conclusions in Delta Eta apply with equal force to this matter. The denial of Petitioner's conditional use permit was a quasi

-

judicial act, guided by Town Code requirements for a conditional use allowed in the C

- 3 Zoning districts. For the reasons stated in Delta Eta , a writ of certiorari is or was available to Petitioner.”).
32 Delta Eta
, 2023 WL 2982180, at * 1. 33 Id. at *2

. 34 Id. at *3

– 4

. 35 Id. at *4

. 36 Id

.10

a declaratory judgment that the denial of the special use permit was invalid, and that

Delta Eta was entitled to “issuance of the Special Use Permit as a matter of law.” 37

Defendants thereafter sought dismissal invoking Court of Chancery Rule

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
, asserting that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 38

On February 2, 2023, the Court agreed, and dismissed the Complaint with leave to

transfer the acti on to this Court pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1902. 39

The Court of Chancery noted that, “ careful examination of the housing
corporation ’ s allegations reveals that the city council acted in a quasi

- judicial
capacity when it denied the special use permit, and so a writ of certiorari in our sister
courts of law is available and affords an adequate remedy.” 40 It found Delta Eta’s
request fell short of invoking equitable jurisdiction “both because [Delta Eta] has

not sufficiently pled the need for an injunction, and because a writ of certiorari
provides an adequate remedy at law.” 41 Regarding the availability of that writ, the
Court noted that the fact “[t]hat Delta Eta waited to seek certiorari review such that
it may now be unavailable is irrelevant for purpose s of this decision.” 42 Like

37 Delta Eta
, 2023 WL 2982180, a t *4

. 38 Id.
39 Id. at *20.

40 Id

. at *1

. 41 Id

. at *4

. 42 Id

. at *14 n.127 . ( See In re Wife, K

. , 297 A.2d 424, 425 (Del. Ch. 1972) ) (“[I]f a litigant fails to avail himself of a remedy provided by law and is subsequently barred from pursuing that remedy because of his own lack of diligence, he cannot then rely on the absence of a remedy at law as a basis for equitable jurisdiction.”).11

Plaintiffs, Delta Eta has since filed for identical relief in this Court. 43 That decision
is pending.

IV. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

Defendants strategically move to dismiss the claim for certiorari review as

time

- barred under well

- settled law that such writs must be filed within thirty days of
the decision sought to be reviewed
, absent exceptional circumstances. 44 They argue

that P laintiffs’ unilateral choice to file in the Court of Chancery fifty

- eight (58) days
after the approval of the conditiona l use permit was untimely, and that Plaintiffs

offer no exceptional circumstances exempting them from the thirty

- day filing rule
applicable to a common law certiorari petition

. 45

Defendants further contend the declaratory judgment claim must be dismissed

because th at remedy is available only when no other remedy exists. 46 In th at vein,
they maintain that P laintiffs ’ failure to timely pursue certiorari does not render th at
remedy inadequate. 47 And since Plaintiffs had an adequate remedy via certiorari
, the declaratory judgment claim must be dismissed. 48

Plaintiffs’ opposition is multi

- faceted

. Through various restyled contentions
, Plaintiffs’ argument against dismissal can be distilled to a single theme of criticism

43 The Superior Court Action in Delta Eta is captioned C.A. No. N23C

- 03

- 136 SKR.
44 County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Compl. ¶ 4. 45 Id

. ¶ 5. 46 Id

. ¶ 6. 47 Id

. ¶ 9. 48 Id

.12

and disagreement with the Delta Eta ruling

. 49 According to Plaintiffs, the Court
“jettisoned decades of decisions that it had jurisdiction over zoning cases

. ” 50 Indeed,
they argue
, filing in the Court of Chancery was common practice
, 51 and subsequently
provide a list of cases where Plaintiffs contend the Court of Chancery exercised
jurisdiction over “similar zoning challenges.” 52 Plaintiffs f urther contend that

D efendants’ defenses should be b arred because they waited “too long” to raise

them. 53 Conversely, Plaintiffs argue that they are not untimely under what they insist

is the most analogous statute, 10 Del. C. § 8126, which allows for a sixty

- day
statutory filing period. 54 Too, t hey suggest this Court should exercise discretion and

find the existence of “unique and extraordinary circumstances” to excuse any filing
delay. 55 And lastly, they argue, the motion to d ismiss should be barred by the

doctrine s of waiver, 56 judicial estoppel, 57 and the law of the case 58 because

Defendants withheld their intent to seek dismissal here from the Court of Chancery

.

49 Pls.’ Answering Br. in Opp’n to County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 10

- 21.
50 Id. at 10. 51 Id. at 19 n.13. (Plaintiffs allege that “no one could have anticipated the jurisdictional change of course that took place in this action.”)

. 52 Id. at 15

- 19. Plaintiffs’ list include s Coker v. Kent Cnty. Levy Court
, 2008 WL 5451337 (Del. Ch. Dec. 23, 2008). Although Plaintiffs refer to Coker only by name and do not base any argumentation on it, Coker was issued in 2008 by the Court of Chancery that con sidered a challenge of the Kent County Levy Court’s denial of a conditional use application. 53 Id

. at 2 1

– 23. 54 Id

. at 2 8

– 33

. 55 Id. at 30

- 33. 56 Id. at 34

– 36. 57 Id. at 34

- 39. 58 Id. at 39

– 40.13

Alternatively, P laintiffs maintain that declaratory judgment is an appropriate
remedy in lieu of certiorari review

. 59 They insist again that this Court lacks
jurisdiction, should “skip all of the arguments
, ” and transfer the case back to the
Court of Chancery 60 “based upon the principle that a w rit of c ertiorari is unavailable
when another adequate remedy is available. ” 61

V. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6), dismissal is appropriate
when the complaint f

ails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 62

When reviewing a ruling on a motion to dismiss, we (1) accept all well pleaded factual allegations as true, (2) accept even vague allegations as “well pleaded” if they give the opposing party notice of the claim, (3) draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non

- moving party, and (4) do not affirm a dismissal unless the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances. 63

V I

. DISCUSSION

Article IV, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution, vests this Court with
“original and exclusive jurisdiction among trial court s

. . . to issue common law writs

59 Pls.’ Answering Br. in Opp’n to County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 41

- 48

. 60 Id. at 51. 61 Id

. at 4 9. 62 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12 (b)(6)

. 63 Cent. Mortg. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Cap. Holdings LLC , 27 A.3d 531, 535 (Del. 2011) (citing Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894, 896

- 97 (Del. 2002))

.14

of certiorari

. ” 64 The Court of Chancery “genera l ly lacks jurisdiction to consider the

issuance of the common law writ.” 65 Previously, the Court of Chancery ha d
contemplate d
, at least in the abstract , the viability of conducting certiorari review

under the clean

- up doctrine

. 66 But at present , only this Court can conduct this

review.

64 Young v. Red Clay Consol. Sch. Dist. , 2015 WL 5853762, at *5 (Del. Ch. Oct. 2, 2015) (citing Maddrey v. Justice of the Peace Court 13, 956 A.2d 1204, 1207 (Del. 2008) ) ; see 1 Victor B. Wooley, Practice in Civil Actions and Proceedings in the Law Courts of the State of Delaware §§ 894

– 896 (1906) (describing common law writ of certiorari as falling within authority of Superior Court).
65 Young, 2015 WL 5853762
, at *5 (citing Gladney v. City of Wilm., 2011 WL 6016048, at *4 (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2011 ) (“[T]he true substance of the relief [plaintiff] seeks is a writ of certiorari, which is both an adequate remedy at law and a remedy reserved to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court.”) ) (citations omitted).

66 Young, 2015 WL 5853762, at *7 (“ No Delaware case has addressed whether the Court of Chancery could exercise clean

- up jurisdiction to issue a common law writ of certiorari . The parties have not cited precedents from other jurisdictions that might shed light on the question, nor have they dusted off venerable treatises on equity practice and procedure. Moreover, any answer that this court might give would not be definitive. Only the Delaware S upreme Court could reconcile two competing sources of jurisdiction, each of constitutional magnitude.”)

.15 A. WRIT OF CERTIORARI

One of the oldest common law writs, the writ of certiorari is “simply a form
that calls up, for review, the record from the lower court or tribunal.” 67 “ [C] ertiorari
involves a review of only such errors as appear on the face of the record being

considere d. ” 68 It is “ not a substitute for, or the functional equivalent of, an appeal.” 69

Nor may this Court consider the case on the merits. 70 Such review is available only
where “(1) the lower entity has acted in a judicial or quasi

- judicial capacity, 71

(2) there is no other adequate remedy at law, 72 and (3) there is no right to appeal. ” 73

In Matter of Gunn, the Supreme Court indicated that the time limit to file a writ of

67 Reise v. Bd. of Bldg. Appeals of City of Newark , 746 A.2d 271, 273 (Del. 2000), overruled by Black v. New Castle Cnty. Bd. of License
, 117 A.3d 1027 (Del. 2015) (citing Matter of Butler , 609 A.2d 1080 (Del. 1992)).
68 Castner v. State , 311 A.2d 858, 858 (Del. 1973) (citations omitted).
69 Maddrey , 956 A.2d at 1213 (citing DuPont v. Family Ct

. for New Castle County, 153 A

. 2d 189, 194 (Del.1959) ) (“it is apparent that review by writ of certiorari is not the equivalent [of an appeal], for in such proceedings the evidence received in the inferior court is not part of the record to be reviewed in a certiorari proceeding.”).
70 Christiana Town Ctr., LLC v. New Castle Cnty

. , 865 A.2d 521 (Del. 2004) (“The reviewing court does not consider the case on its merits ; rather, it considers the record to determine whether the lower tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, com mitted errors of law, or proceeded irregularly.”) (citations omitted).
71 Delta Eta , 2023 WL 2982180, at *10 ( citing Dover Historical Soc. at 1106 ) (“The common law writ of certiorari lies to review acts that are judicial or quasi

- judicial in nature.”) (citations omitted).

72 Id. (citing In re Petition of Howell , 2007 WL 1114123, at *1 (Del. 2007)).

73 Id. ( See Reise v. Bd. of Bldg. Appeals of City of Newark , 746 A.2d at 272 ).16

certiorari is thirty ( 30 ) days from the action underlying the petition
, 74 excusable only
under exceptional circumstances.” 75

1. Thirty

- Day Filing for Writ of Certiorari
It is undisputed that Plaintiffs filed their first challenge fifty

- eight (58) days
after the Levy Court made its determination to grant the conditional use permit

. To

be fair, P laintiffs were not seeking certiorari review. Yet
, Defendants rely solely on

the 30

- day certiorari deadline to argue for dismissal of all claims.
Plaintiffs offer statutory alternatives, case law, and common practices to
suggest the time limit to file the review is sixty (60) days. 76 Specifically, t hey
propose that the “law in Delaware is that a certiorari action must generally be filed

w ithin the period of time contained in the most closely analogous Delaware Code
provision.” 77 And to them, that 10 Del. C. § 8126

— which governs c ounty and

74 Matter of Gunn , 122 A.3d 1292, 1293 (Del. 2015) ; In re Bass, 1992 WL 183105, at *1 ( Del

. July 23, 1992); Cape Henlopen School District v. Delaware Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n, 2009 WL 388944, at *2 ( Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 28, 2009) (“ ‘There appears to be no good reason, absent exceptional circumstances, why a party should have more time to ask for the writ of certiorari than he would have to take an appeal

. . . in an ordinary case’ ” ) (quoting Elcorta, Inc. v. Summi t Aviation, Inc., 528 A.2d 1199, 1201 (Del. Super. Ct. 1 987 ) ).
75 Id

. In re Petition of Fridge, 604 A.2d 417 (Table), 1991 WL 247811, at *1 ( Del . Nov. 20, 1991) (“Although there is no statutorily

- imposed time period in which to seek review under a writ of certiorari, we have ruled that the time for seeking such review is analogous to the period governing direct appeals” and holding that a petition not filed within thirty days was time barred); McIntosh

v. City of Newark, 2006 WL 1134894, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 31, 2006) (“The period of time for filing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari has been set by decisions in this Court at 30 days.”).
76 Pls.’ Answering Br. in Opp’n to County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 24

- 2 8

. 77 Id

. at 25.17

municipality zoning and planning actions with its 60

- day fili ng time limit

— is most
analogous. 78 Not so.

At the outset, it is true that the statute of repose included within 10 Del. C.

§ 8126 requires any challenge of a municipal zoning decision to be filed within 60
days. 79 The act of rezoning is legislative in nature and theref ore cannot be subject

to a writ of certiorari

. 80 But here, the Court of Chancery determined that t he Levy
Court’s role was to approve or deny a special use permit , and as explained in Delta

Eta , “ [w] hen the availability of the special use permit is circumscribed by ordinance,
approving or denying a special use permit application is a quasi

- judicial act
, ” 81

subject only to review by writ of certiorari

. 82

Next, t he request to re visit the Court of Chancery’s determination exceeds the
scope of review in th is 12(b)(6) motion

. C o nsideration of a most analogous statute

78 Pls.’ Answering Br. in Opp’n to County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 25.
79 See 10 Del. C . § 8126.
80 See Delta Eta , 2023 WL 2982180, at *17 (“As explained, the act of rezoning is legislative in nature and therefore cannot be subject to a writ of certiorari that precludes this Court's jurisdiction”) (citations omitted).
81 Delta Eta , 2023 WL 2982180, at *13 ; (citations omitted) ; See Omnipoint C orp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. Of Pine Grove Twp. , 181 F.3d 403, 409 (3d Cir. 1999) (reasoning a zoning hearing board acted in a quasi

-

judicial capacity when it denied an application for a special use permit); s ee also 3 Arden H. Rathkopf et al., Rathkopf's Th e Law of Zoning and Planning § 61:47 (4th ed. 2005) (“For the purpose of judicial review, many if not most courts treat the decision of a local legislative body to grant or deny a special permit as a quasi

- judicial act subject to court review on questions of law and abuse of discretion and substantial evidence review of reasons and findings.”).

82 Citizens Against Solar Pollution I
, 2023 WL 2199646, at * 2

.18

is also not proper where after Gunn
, our Supreme Court indicated the 30

- day

deadline applies to common law certiorari review

. To accept Plaintiffs’ position

that a 60

- day time limit applies would require this Court to : (1) ignore the Supreme
Court’s pronouncement under Gunn ; and (2) reject the Chancery Court’s
determination that the Levy Court’s act was quasi

- judicial. Neither is proper.

2. Exceptional Circumstances
A petition for a writ of certiorari “filed later than thirty days will be excused
only under exceptional circumstances.” 83 While Delaware courts have not settled

on what constitutes an “exceptional circumstance
, ” 84 the Delaware Supreme Court

did conclude in Gunn that “[p]etitioner ’ s unilat eral decision to pursue an improper
course of litigation is not an exceptional circumstance that excuses the delay in filing

the Petition for a writ of certiorari .” 85

The issue of whether exceptional circumstances exist to excuse the

untimeliness has been ar gued by both sides here

. Rather than provide circumstances
for why Plaintiffs failed to file before the 30

- day deadline, they point to the Delta

Eta de cision. Defendants say Plaintiffs simply made a wrong choice to file in the
Court of Chancery . For completeness, this Court addresses each of their arguments.

83 Matter of Gunn , 122 A.3d at 1293. 84 FMC Corp. v. Special Servs. Dep't , 2017 WL 2378002, at *4 ( Del. Super. Ct. May 31, 2017).
85 Matter of Gunn , 122 A.3d at 1293.19

Plaintiffs’ counsel is a seasoned land

- use practitioner. In challenging the
Levy Court’s decision granting the conditional use permit, Plaintiffs sought
equitable relief in the form of both a temporary and permanent injunction and filed
58 days after the Levy Court acted . No doubt the equitable relief sought in Chancery
would have allowed Plaintiffs to reap the benefits of discovery and a different

standa rd of review
, 86 neither of which is available through certiorari review. 87

Plaintiffs’ counsel , for good reason, may have always believed this a proper

course. This Court has a sympathetic ear to the Bar that practices in this area and
some understanding of its previous filing practices. Indeed, this Court could perhaps
have determined the existence of exceptional circumstances if Plaintiffs had offered
more than surprise and disagreement with the Delta Eta ruling as its non

- articulated

bases

. But this Court is limited to Plaintiffs’ arguments as presented. And o n this

record, they are insufficient . Plaintiffs make two incorrect assumption s : that this
Court’s authority is sufficiently broad to conduct a review of a sister court’s decision
in order to find exceptional circumstances ; and that the circumstance of an
unfavorable court ruling

— standing alone

— is exceptional.

86 Maddrey , 956 A.2d at 1207

. (“[T]he Superior Court ’ s scope of review on common law writs of certiorari issued to any inferior tribunal in any type of case, is limited to errors on the face of the record.”).

87 Id . at 1213. (“The reviewing court does not consider the merits of the case. It considers only those issues historically considered at common law; namely, whether the lower tribunal (1) committed errors of law, (2) exceeded its jurisdiction, or (3) proceeded irregularly.”) (citations omitted).20

Of course, this Court has f ound exceptional circumstances in some instances

.

In FMC Corporation v. Special Services Department
, c ompelling circumstances
existed to justify extension of the 30

- day deadline for certiorari review. 88 There, the

C ourt found exceptional circumstances because the petitioner had properly sought

and timely filed for appellate review under the applicable county code that the
petitioner understood as specifically providing for appeals. 89 As it turns out, that
code’s provision misstated the pr ocess for “ appellate ” review. 90 After th e FMC

Corp. Court concluded that the petitioner did not have a statutory appeal right
, it

d etermined that the exceptional standards were appropriately met

. 91

But here, Plaintiffs do not argue a mistake in the law as written . Rather, they

argue that the surprise of ( and their disagreement with) the Delta Eta ruling is the
exceptional circumstance that they complain “jettisoned decades of decisions that it

had jurisdiction over zoning cases.” 92 And j ust as Plaintiffs unsuccessfully argue d

88 FMC Corp. , 2017 WL 2378002, at *1.
89 Id . at *4. (“Here, FMC filed a notice of appeal in a timely manner, providing copies and notice to both the Department and the County. FMC proceeded under Section 38.03.004 of the Code, which at least arguably could be understood to create a right of appeal to this Court. That Section certainly w as enough to create a level of uncertainty regarding the proper way to appeal. Without any decision of this Court interpreting Section 38.03.004, FMC found itself between Scylla and Charybdis; whatever avenue it pursued, FMC would be faced with a timelines s argument if a court ultimately determined it was the wrong avenue. FMC’s understandable uncertainty as to whether a right of direct appeal existed is excusable

... .”)

. 90 Id . at *3.
91 Id . at *4. 92 Pls.’ Answering Br. in Opp’n to County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismis s at 10

- 21.21

the applicability of 10 Del. C. § 8126
, they now suggest exceptional circumstances

are established if this Court examines those past Chancery zoning decisions and
declares a radical departure

. This Court cannot conduct the review as requested.
Enumerating various Sussex County rezoning decisions, Plaintiffs attach
some historical significance to them, 93 and argue that Delta Eta ’s ruling “failed to

jibe with it s decades

- long exercise of jurisdiction over actions challenging...zoning

decisions ” and “flied in the face of the theory that [r] ezonings are always legislative
and Conditional Use approvals are always quasi

- judicial.” 94 C riticizing the Delta

Eta decision, Plaintiffs elaborate on how other courts may have addressed the
characterization of prior conditional use permit s ( i.e. , legislative, administrative, and
quasi

- judicial) and the differences in our counties’ rezoning codes

. 95 But, in the end,

Plaintiff s c once de that the rezoning function is legislative

. 96

In an attempt t o gain some ground, Plaintiffs posit that a mere finding of
“appropriate circumstances” would allow the Court to exercise its discretion to

93 Pls.’ Answering Br. in Opp’n to County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 11

- 21. 94 Id. at 13. 95 Id. at 10

- 12.

96 Id. at 10. (“...although a rezoning function is legislative,” it “resembles a judicial determination.”).22

excuse their delay

. 97 Even if this were the correct standard, 98 Plaintiffs’ selected

caselaw does not support their argument that this Court has such authority.
Plaintiffs rely on the trial court’s decision in Capano Investments v.

Levenberg 99 to suggest this Court “possesses judicial discretion under the unique and

extraordinary circumstances [they claim are present here]

. . . to rule that the certiorari
filing was timely

. . . . ” 100 But Capano Investments does not vest this Court with the

disc retion to qualify the circumstances here “extraordinary” as proposed by

Plaintiffs. 101 There, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling that it

did not have appellate jurisdiction to review a summary possession appeal where the

law provided an appeal process to a special three

- judge court. 102 Plaintiffs cherry

pick language 103 from this Superior Court ruling 104 that has nothing to do with

97 Pls.’ Answering Br. in Opp’n to County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 29

- 30.
98 Plaintiffs’ use of the “appropriate circumstances” standard ignores evolving Delaware case law. Schafer v. Kent Cnty. Dep't of Planning Servs. , 2023 WL 3750390, at *6 (Del. Super. Ct. May 31, 2023) (citing Matter of Gunn , 122 A.3d at 1293 ) ( providing for the first time in Delaware decisional law that “exceptional circumstances” as opposed to “ appropriate circumstances ” are needed to excuse an untimely petition for writ of certiorari ).
99 1988 WL 139892 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 9, 1988), aff'd, 564 A.2d 1130 (Del. 1989). 100 Pls.’ Answering Br. in Opp’n to County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 31

- 32. 101 Id

. 102 See Capano Investments v. Levenberg , 564 A.2d 1130 (Del. 1989)

. 103 Pls.’ Answering Br. in Opp’n to County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 31. (“A good example of how this Court has exercised discretion to allow a Certiorari action to be filed beyond the 30

- day rule of thumb is [ Capano Investments ].”).
104 What the Superior Cou rt did say and what was subsequently affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court was, “Capano ’ s appeal must be dismissed because no appeal to Superior Court is provided in summary possession cases. Neither ground which Capano advances in support of its petition for a writ of certiorari is valid. It seeks a review of the merits of the case which is beyond the scope of certiorari, and its argument that the panel was deprived of jurisdiction

... is rejected by this Court .” Capano Investments , 1988 WL 139892, a t *3

.23

exceptional circumstances
, 105 and ignore the gravamen of the Supreme Court’s

decision affirm ing it. 106 The Supreme Court was not upholding a discretionary act.
Instead, it simply affirmed that th is Court did not have jurisdiction in that particular

action.

Plaintiffs’ refrain that the Delta Eta decision upended the universe of zoning
jurisprudence misses the mark. T his Court cannot conduct the proposed extensive
review they seek in order to find exceptional circumstances. T he choice to seek a

more favorable form of review in one court over the permissible review by another

is not s ufficient to qualify as an exceptional circumstance . And t he criticism of the

Delta Eta ruling, without a substantive basis beyond mere disagreement with it, is

also insufficient.

But t he analysis does not end here. Both sides downplay the significance of

10 Del. C. § 1902’s transfer provisions. Defendants turn a blind eye to it and
Plaintiffs read it to suggest th is matter should return to the Court of Chancery. This

Court reads the transfer statute differently.

105 The Superior Court held that it did not have jurisdiction and Plaintiffs’ attempt to construe that as a judicial exercise of discretion is incorrect.
106 Capano Investments , 564 A. 2d at 11 31 (holding that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction to review substantive rulings of the justice of the peace court in summary possession proceedings, and the statute permitting a right to appeal to a special court comprised of three justices of the peace did not give parties a right to appeal to the Superior Court).24

3. Ten Del. C. § 1902’s Discretionary Provisions

T his matter was timely transferred from the Court of Chancery pursuant to

10 Del. C. § 1902, which statutorily authorizes the removal of actions from courts
lacking jurisdiction

. The law provides:
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

. . . . Such proceeding may be transferred to an appropriate court for hearing and determination

. . . . The latter court shall thereupon entertain such applications in the proceeding as conform to law and to the rules and practice of such
court , and may by rule or special order provide for amendments in pleadings and for all other matters concerning the course of procedure for hearing and determining the cause as justice may require

. For the purpose of laches or of any statute of limitations, the time of bringing the proceeding shall be deemed to be the time when it was brought in the first court.

This section shall be liberally construed to permit and facilitate transfers of proceedings between the courts of this State in the interest s of justice. 107

Defendants maintain this Court must dismiss where Plaintiffs “filed in the
wrong court and sought the wrong remedy.” 108 They double down and contend that

107 10 Del. C . § 1902 (emphasis added). 108 County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Compl. ¶ 5.25

t he failure to file within the 30

- day deadline serves to bar Plaintiffs here regardless

of the transfer to this Court

. Th is argument ignore s § 1902 ’s provisions

.
Our Supreme Court has instructed that § 1902 is “ a remedial statute designed
to prevent a case from being totally ousted because it was brought in the wrong

Court.” 109 It further directed in Nicholas v. Nat ’ l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh,

Pa, that “[a]ccording to its express terms [§] 1902 should be liberally applied to
achieve its purposes.” 110

Thus, a lthough § 1902 provides guidance as to timeliness issues associated

with statute of limitations and laches
, the policy considerations behind the statute

are intended to allow judicial officers latitude in facilitating the transfer of cases

. For the reasons more fully explained now, the language of § 1902 overrides any
residual arguments that th e missed deadline implicates this transfe r

.

a. Section 1902’s Conformity T o Rules and Practice
Absent governing rules and procedures in this Court, a case transferred under

§ 1902 from the Court of Chancery is subject to judicial discretion in conformity to
law and to the rules and practice of such cou rt , and may by rule or special order
,

109 Wilmington Tr. Co. v. Schneider , 342 A.2d 240, 242 (Del. 1975). 110 Nicholas v. Nat ’ l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa , 74 A.3d 634, 636 (Del. 2013) (quoting Family Court of Delaware v. Giles , 384 A.2d 623, 624 (Del. 1978)).26

provide for amendments in order to facilitate the transfer of cases between Delaware

courts. 111

W ith this guidance, the Court looks to the Chancery Action’s decision to grant

Plaintiffs ’ leave to transfer their matter to this Court. The parties had reached the

cross

- summary judgment stage in the Chancery Action when the Court determined

it lacked subject matter jurisdiction

. Once here, the parties seemed unsure as to how
to proceed
, as evident from their respective filings

. 112

The Court of Chancery’s most recent d ecision in Kroll v. City of Wilmington 113

speaks to the complexity surrounding the intersection of the transfer of cases

between the courts. It is not the Kroll C ourt’s hold ing on the issue of subject matter
jurisdiction that is germane to the issue here
, but its acknowledge ment that both the
Chancery and Superior courts need to attain some procedural footing in light of the

recent decision s following Delta Eta. Kroll noted that :
[t]he parties’ briefing raises interesting issues on the fault lines between this court’s jurisdiction and the Superior Court’s exclusive powers to review certain administrative decisions through the writ of certiorari

.

. . . [T]he briefing di d not offer much in the way of a resolution. And the answer is messy

— there seems to be no clear rule for deciding

111 See 10 Del. C . § 1902.
112 Plaintiffs’ belt and suspenders filings include both an Amended Complaint and a Motion for Writ of Certiorari to stay the proceedings, even after the Chancery Action had clarified that the matter had been stayed during the pendency of litigation in both c ourts. Defendants conceded as much. Defendants also sought direction and leave to file a Motion to Dismiss as their responsive pleading to the Amended Complaint.
113 2023 WL 6012795 (Del. Ch. Sept. 15, 2023).27

whether certiorari presents an adequate remedy to injunctive relie f

. . . . 114

The apparent availability of certiorari and injunctive relief as dueling review mechanisms of last resort for administrative decisions raises a complicated jurisdictional analysis for the Court of Chancery. 115

So, by default, this Court must also conside r the procedural processes moving

forward. 116 This Court, f inding itself in “ murky and dispositive” 117 territory
concerning a § 1902 transfer also steers clear of a ruling that would unduly penalize

Plaintiffs and leav e them without a remedy in either court

. 118 Section 1902 affords
the exercise of discretion to prevent such a harsh result. This further aligns with our

sister court’s re cent post

- Delta Eta observation that “[e]ven where the court has

found itself devoid of subject matter jurisdiction bec ause certiorari was available, it

114 Kroll , 2023 WL 6012795
, at *2. 115 Id. at *11. 116 Pending in this Court are two additional cases transferred under § 1902: Delta Eta captioned C.A. No. N23C

- 03

- 136 SKR and Middlecap Assoc. vs. The Town of Middletown captioned C.A. No. N23C

- 03

- 181 CEB

. 117 Otto Candies, LLC v. KPMG, LLP
, 2019 WL 1856766, at *4 (Del. Ch. Apr. 25, 2019) (“I believe Plaintiffs likewise operated in good faith while in the shadow of a murky and dispositive legal issue. I apply the good cause exception to dismiss Plaintiffs ’ claims without prejudice. But now that the issue has been sorted out, I would not give the same latitude to future parties in similar situations.”)

. 118 Id. at *1

. (“...Rule 15(aaa), or the policies that motivate it, apply when a complaint is transferred to this Court subject to a fully briefed mo tion seeking dismissal under Rules 12(b)(6) or 23.1. Transferring plaintiffs must either seek leave to amend or stand firm on their complaint and risk dismissal with prejudice under Rule 15(aaa). However, because the parties in this action were the first to confront this issue, the interests of justice require a mulligan. Extinguishing plaintiffs' claims with prejudice under Rule 15(aaa) would be unduly penal under the circumstances, and so their claims are dismissed without prejudice under the good cause exception to Rule 15(aaa).”)

.28

has avoided announcing a categorical rule to that effect and has always paid special
attention to the relief sought by the plaintiff.” 119

b

. Section 1902’s Mandate in the Interest s of Justice

In the aftermath of D el ta Eta
, some defendants that have moved for dismissal
,
have later a greed that the reasonable course is to avoid the wholesale dismissal of an

action
, and accordingly, simply consented to amend ment of the transferred matter to

include certiorari review

. 120 Thi s allow s the se action s to move forward without

consider ation of the timeliness issue

. 121

Defendants here , however, raise the timeliness issue that creat es a catch

- 22.
Having successfully argue d that the Court of Chancery lacks jurisdiction because a
legal remedy exists here
, it now asks this Court to find the remedy is time

- barred

.
Plaintiffs cry foul

. They say Defendants’ failure to raise the timeliness argument in

the Chan cery Action should now bar Defendants’ un timeliness defense under the

doctrines of waiver, 122 judicial estoppel, 123 and law of the case, respectively. 124

119 Kroll v. City of Wilmington
, 2023 WL 6012795, at *11.
120 See 3330 Hospitality Group, LLC. v. City of Rehoboth Beach, et al. (Captioned S22C

- 11

- 016 RHR) (Upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Upon Transfer, from a bench ruling, the Superior Court “directs Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to certiorari with writ within thirty (30) days....”) (D.I. 15). It’s often sunnier in Sussex County.
121 Id.
122 Pls.’ Answering Br. in Opp’n to County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 34

– 35. 123 Id. at 36

- 3 9

. 124 Id. at 39

– 40.29

It is true that t he Chancery Action never addressed the issue of timeliness

.
Whether Defendants did
, or failed to make
, inconsistent or contrary arguments in

th at Court is of no consequence. This Court also need not consider the doctrines of
waiver, estoppel, or law of the case as argued by Plaintiff

. 125 T he language of § 1902

and the C ourt of Chancery’s decision to transfer are sufficient. 126

The express language of § 1902 mandates it “be liberally construed to permit

and facilitate transfer... in the interest s of justice ,” allowing a “course of procedure

for hearing and determining the cau se as justice may require .” 127 The procedural
history reflects that from the first pleading when D efendants filed their Answer to
the Verified Complaint

— and throughout the life of the Chancery Action

— they

insisted dismissal was warranted because Plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at

law. 128

125 Pls.’ Answering Br. in Opp’n to County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 39

- 40

. To the extent that Plaintiffs argue the 12(b)(6) motion for dismissal is barred by the Law of the Case Doctrine, the argument fails as presented where Plaintiffs seek a remand to the Court of Chancery. This Court is bound to consider only the writ of certiorari as contemplated by the Court of Chancery.
126 See Rev olution Rentals DE, LLC v. Pomerleau , 2022 WL 16827448, at *5 ( Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 4, 2022) (“Law of the case doctrine serves as ‘a form of intra

- litigation stare decisis .’”) (citing Carlyle Inv. Mgmt. L.L.C. v. Moonmouth Co. S.A. , 2015 WL 5278913, at *7 (Del. Ch. Sept. 10, 2015) )

. 127 10 Del. C . § 1902 (emphasis added). 128 County Defs.’ Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. To Dismiss, at 11. (“[T]he jurisdictional defense was timely asserted in the Court of Chancery in Defendants’ third and fourteenth affirmative defenses which state, respectively
, ‘Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law’ and ‘[t]he conditional use application decision is a quasi

- judicial action for which this Court lacks jurisdiction. ’ ”).30

In the final stages of that litigation, Defendants succeeded in persuading th at

Cour t that the remedy existed and convinced that Court to summarily dismiss the
Chancery A ction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. Upon taking its decisional

action, the Court of Chancery contemplated that an adequate remedy exists here.
Accordingly, j ustice requires that this transferee c ourt exercise its discretion and

consider the matter

. To be persuaded otherwise would leave Plaintiffs without a
remedy in either court , violati ng both the spirit of § 1902 and the Court of
Chancery’s intent when it ended the Chancery Action

.
Dismissal of Plaintiffs ’ request for certiorari review i n Count II of the
Amended Complaint i s therefore improper . And Plaintiffs’ subsequent motion

seeking the same relief is moot. T his mat ter w ill proceed as a petition for writ of

certiorari.

B. Declaratory Judgment
Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that this Court should exercise its discretion to transfer
the matter back to the Court of Chancery “based upon the principle that a writ of

certiorari review is unavailable when another adequate [equitable] remedy [of
declaratory judgment] is available.” 129 Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 130

Delaware courts are empowered to render a declaratory judgment only when “[i]t

129 Pls.’ Answering Br. in Opp’n to County Def s.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 49

. 130 10 Del. C. § 6501.