COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

DONALD F. PARSONS, JR.

VICE CHANCELLOR

New Castle County Courthouse

500 N. King Street, Suite 11400

Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3734

Date Submitted: July 9, 2015

Date Decided: July 14, 2015

Joseph C. Handlon, Esq.

Roopa Sabesan, Esq.

Meredith Stewart Tweedie, Esq.

Delaware Department of Justice

820 North French Street

Wilmington, DE 19801

Richard H. Morse, Esq.

American Civil Liberties Union

Foundation of Delaware

100 West 10th Street

Wilmington, DE 19801

RE: Doe, et al. v. Coupe

Civil Action No. 10983-VCP

Dear Counsel:

The plaintiffs bring this action against the Commissioner of the Delaware 

Department of Correction, seeking an order preliminarily and permanently 

enjoining the defendant from continuing to require that the plaintiffs wear GPS

monitor ankle bracelets, and declaring that the statute pursuant to which the 

defendant enforces the GPS monitoring requirement is unconstitutional. The 

defendant moved under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss the complaint 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth herein, I deny the 

motion.
Doe, et al. v. Coupe

Civil Action No. 10983-VCP

July 14, 2015

Page 2

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, Mary Doe, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2,1are citizens and 

residents of Delaware. They previously were convicted and incarcerated for sex 

crimes, and each now is on either probation or parole. As a result of their criminal 

records, each Plaintiff has been assigned to “Risk Assessment Tier III” of the sex 

offender registry administered by the Delaware State Bureau of Investigation 

pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4121. In 2007, that statute was amended to require that, 

“Notwithstanding any provision of this section or title to the contrary, any Tier III 

sex offender being monitored at Level IV, III, II or I, shall as a condition of their 

probation, wear a GPS locator ankle bracelet paid for by the probationer.”2 In the 

case of each Plaintiff, the GPS monitor requirement was enacted after he or she 

was convicted of the offenses that have resulted in his or her status as a registered 

sex offender.3 Plaintiffs aver that no government agency has made a finding that 

 

1 The Court signed an order on April 30, 2015, granting Plaintiffs‟ motion to 

file and proceed using pseudonyms. Docket Item No. 2.

2

11 Del. C. §4121(u) [hereinafter the “GPS Monitoring Statute”]; see 76 Del. 

Laws, ch. 123, § 1 (2007).

3 Mary Doe was convicted in New York in 1992 and incarcerated there from 

1991 to 2010. Compl. ¶ 9. John Doe 1 was convicted in Delaware in 1979 

and incarcerated here until 2009. Id. ¶ 24. John Doe 2 was convicted in 

2001 and incarcerated until 2009. Id. ¶ 35.
Doe, et al. v. Coupe

Civil Action No. 10983-VCP

July 14, 2015

Page 3

any of them poses a continuing danger such that requiring them to wear the GPS 

monitor bracelets would increase public safety.4 

Plaintiffs commenced this action against Defendant, Robert M. Coupe, the 

Commissioner of the Delaware Department of Correction, on May 4, 2015. The 

Probation and Parole section of the Department of Correction administers the GPS 

Monitoring Statute. By this action, Plaintiffs seek an order of this Court 

“preliminarily and permanently enjoining [D]efendant from requiring them to 

continue wearing the GPS devices. Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that 11 Del. 

C. § 4121(u) on its face and as applied by [D]efendant violates the Fourth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution,”5or that the application of the GPS 

Monitoring Statute to individuals, such as Plaintiffs, convicted of sex offenses 

before the statute‟s effective date, July 12, 2007, violates the Ex Post Facto clause 

of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs also challenge the statute facially and as

applied under Article I, § 6 of the Delaware Constitution. 

Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have an adequate 

 

4

E.g., id. ¶ 2.

5

Id. ¶ 6.
Doe, et al. v. Coupe

Civil Action No. 10983-VCP

July 14, 2015

Page 4

remedy at law because they have the ability to obtain a declaration from the 

Superior Court that the GPS Monitoring Statute is unconstitutional, either facially 

or as applied to Plaintiffs. Defendant contends, moreover, that should such a 

declaratory judgment issue, it would be “self-executing,” requiring no further 

injunctive relief to enforce it. Plaintiffs counter by arguing that the core relief they 

seek is equitable in nature—i.e., an injunction requiring Defendant to stop forcing 

Plaintiffs to wear the GPS-monitoring ankle bracelets. Thus, Plaintiffs assert that, 

notwithstanding that the Superior Court conceivably could adjudicate the 

constitutionality of the GPS Monitoring Statute and render a declaratory judgment 

in that regard, subject matter jurisdiction is proper in the Court of Chancery 

because the ultimate relief Plaintiffs seek is equitable in nature.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

The Court of Chancery is a court of limited jurisdiction. It does “not have 

jurisdiction to determine any matter wherein sufficient remedy may be had by 

common law, or statute, before any other court or jurisdiction of this State.”6 

Absent a statutory delegation of subject matter jurisdiction, this Court can acquire 

 

6

10 Del. C. § 342.
Doe, et al. v. Coupe

Civil Action No. 10983-VCP

July 14, 2015

Page 5

subject matter jurisdiction over a case only if a plaintiff: (1) invokes an equitable 

right; or (2) requests an equitable remedy when there is no adequate remedy at 

law.7 The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that this Court has subject 

matter jurisdiction.8 In making its determination as to subject matter jurisdiction, 

the court must review the allegations of the complaint as a whole to determine the 

true nature of the claim.9 Determining whether a plaintiff truly seeks equitable 

relief is a context-specific inquiry. As stated by then-Vice Chancellor Chandler:

It has been frequently said that this Court, in determining 

jurisdiction, will go behind the “facade of prayers” to 

determine the “true reason” for which the plaintiff has 

brought suit. By this it is meant that a judge in equity 

will take a practical view of the complaint, and will not 

permit a suit to be brought in Chancery where a complete 

legal remedy otherwise exists but where the plaintiff has 

prayed for some type of traditional equitable relief as a 

kind of formulaic “open sesame” to the Court of 

 

7

Israel Disc. Bank of N.Y. v. First State Depository Co., 2012 WL 4459802, 

at *4 (Del. Ch. Sept. 27, 2012), aff’d, 86 A.3d 1118 (Del. 2014).

8 Charlotte Broad., LLC v. Davis Broad. of Atlanta LLC, 2013 WL 1405509, 

at *3 (Del. Ch. Apr. 2, 2013). “Equitable jurisdiction must be determined 

from the face of the complaint as of the time of filing, with all material 

factual allegations viewed as true.” Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Comdisco, 

Inc., 602 A.2d 74, 78 (Del. Ch. 1991) (citing Diebold Computer Leasing, 

Inc. v. Commercial Credit Corp., 267 A.2d 586 (Del. 1970)).

9 Charlotte Broad., LLC, 2013 WL 1405509, at *3. 
Doe, et al. v. Coupe

Civil Action No. 10983-VCP

July 14, 2015

Page 6

Chancery. A practical analysis of the adequacy of any 

legal remedy, then, must be the point of departure for 

each matter which comes before this Court.10

B. This Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Claims 

With the foregoing principles in mind, I conclude that this Court does have 

subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs‟ claims, because those claims truly seek 

equitable relief and it is not clear that Plaintiffs could obtain an adequate remedy at 

law. The principal relief sought in the Complaint is an order requiring that the 

Department of Correction stop forcing Plaintiffs to wear the GPS-monitoring ankle 

bracelets. Plaintiffs have shown that the harms the GPS monitors allegedly inflict 

upon them probably cannot be cured by a legal remedy such as damages.11 For 

example, Plaintiff Mary Doe alleges that her ankle bracelet, which weighs five 

pounds, causes soreness and abrasions, and makes it difficult to bathe or sleep.12 

She further avers that because of the public questioning that results from the ankle 

 

10 Comdisco, Inc., 602 A.2d at 78 (citations omitted).

11 Compl. ¶¶ 19-22, 31-33.

12 Id. ¶ 19.
Doe, et al. v. Coupe

Civil Action No. 10983-VCP

July 14, 2015

Page 7

bracelet, she must wear long pants at all times, and has been unable to swim on 

family vacations with her fiancé and children.13 

It ultimately may be the case that all of Plaintiffs‟ allegations in this regard 

are unfounded, or that their grievances, while legitimate, are insufficient to merit 

injunctive relief, assuming the GPS Monitoring Statute is determined to be 

unconstitutional. I express no opinion on the merits of the constitutional issues 

here or as to whether Plaintiffs otherwise satisfy the requirements for injunctive 

relief, except to find that their claims for such relief are at least colorable. Taking 

those allegations as true for purposes of this motion to dismiss, however, I am 

convinced that, going beyond “the „facade of prayers‟ to determine the „true 

reason‟ for which the plaintiff has brought suit,”14 as our case law instructs me to 

do, the nature of the relief sought by Plaintiffs is equitable. Plaintiffs primarily 

seek to have the GPS monitor bracelets removed from their ankles; no legal 

remedy would be adequate to redress that grievance. For that reason, I find this 

case distinguishable from several cases cited by Defendant in which the plaintiffs 

truly were seeking legal remedies but “prayed for some type of traditional 

 

13 Id. ¶¶ 20, 14.

14 Comdisco, Inc., 602 A.2d at 78.
Doe, et al. v. Coupe

Civil Action No. 10983-VCP

July 14, 2015

Page 8

equitable relief as a kind of formulaic „open sesame‟ to the Court of Chancery.”15 

Plaintiffs‟ claims here genuinely seek injunctive relief not available elsewhere; 

therefore, this Court has jurisdiction over such claims.

In arguing for a contrary conclusion, Defendant urges me to dismiss the 

Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiffs do not really “need” injunctive relief 

because they could file in Superior Court for a declaratory judgment as to the GPS 

Monitoring Statute, and that such a judgment would be “final” and would obviate 

the need for any further injunction (assuming Defendant abides by the judgment). 

I do not question the premises of this argument: Plaintiffs conceivably could obtain 

a declaratory judgment in Superior Court as to the Statute‟s constitutionality, and I 

consider it reasonable to assume that the Department of Correction would not 

continue enforcing the GPS Monitoring Statute if it were judged unconstitutional. 

Defendant‟s conclusion, however, does not follow. 

One problem with Defendant‟s argument is its misplaced reliance on 10 Del. 

C. § 6501, the “Declaratory Judgment Act.” Section 6501 states that: 

Except where the Constitution of this State provides 

otherwise, courts of record within their respective 

jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status and 

 

15 Id.
Doe, et al. v. Coupe

Civil Action No. 10983-VCP

July 14, 2015

Page 9

other legal relations whether or not further relief is or 

could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open 

to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or 

decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either 

affirmative or negative in form and effect, and such 

declaration shall have the force and effect of a final 

judgment or decree.16

The Declaratory Judgment Act operates to ensure that, if a court would have 

subject matter jurisdiction over a certain lawsuit, no party to that suit can preclude 

the court from hearing the case (“declar[ing] rights, status and other legal 

relations”) merely because “no further relief is or could be claimed.” In other 

words, a party cannot object that its opponent merely seeks a “declaratory 

judgment.” 

As the Delaware Supreme Court stated in Diebold Computer Leasing, Inc. v. 

Commercial Credit Corp., “The basic purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act is 

to enable the courts to adjudicate a controversy prior to the time when a remedy is 

traditionally available and, thus, to advance to [a] stage at which a matter is 

traditionally justiciable.”17 Critically, however, the Declaratory Judgment Act 

cannot and does not divest this Court or any court of subject matter jurisdiction as 

 

16 10 Del. C. § 6501.

17 267 A.2d 586, 591-92 (Del. 1970).
Doe, et al. v. Coupe

Civil Action No. 10983-VCP

July 14, 2015

Page 10

to a particular case, if such jurisdiction would be proper according to the traditional 

principles for determining that issue.18 Our law does not support Defendant‟s 

attempt to use the Declaratory Judgment Act as a means to deprive this Court of 

subject matter jurisdiction over a case in which Plaintiffs truly seek equitable 

relief.19 

 

18 Id. at 591 (“We conclude, therefore, that subject-matter jurisdiction in 

Chancery appeared in this cause in the form of the traditional jurisdiction of 

equity over threatened breach of contract. . . . That jurisdiction was not 

divested by our Declaratory Judgment Act, 10 Del. C. § 6501. While it is 

conceivable that, under § 6501, [Plaintiff] may have brought a declaratory 

judgment action in the Superior Court for a construction of the Loan 

Agreement, and that, for practical purposes, such action may have furnished 

an adequate remedy, it does not follow that the creation of such remedy by 

§ 6501 divested the Chancery Court of the traditional jurisdiction we have 

found it possessed in this case. It is settled that Chancery jurisdiction 

remains, notwithstanding the statutory creation of jurisdiction of the subject 

matter in another court and a remedy elsewhere that may be adequate, unless 

the new remedy is equivalent and is expressly made exclusive in the other 

tribunal. . . . Obviously, the Declaratory Judgment Act does not fulfill the 

tests required for the ouster of equity jurisdiction.”) (footnotes omitted) 

(emphasis added) (citing DuPont v. DuPont, 85 A.2d 724, 729-30 (Del. 

1951)).

19 I note that the Delaware Supreme Court has continued to cite the 1970 

Diebold opinion and employ the same test for determining the Court of 

Chancery‟s subject matter jurisdiction. See Candlewood Timber Gp., LLC v. 

Pan Am. Energy, LLC, 859 A.2d 989, 997 (Del. 2004) (“In deciding whether 

or not equitable jurisdiction exists, the Court must look beyond the remedies 

nominally being sought, and focus upon the allegations of the complaint in 

light of what the plaintiff really seeks to gain by bringing his or her claim.”) 
Doe, et al. v. Coupe

Civil Action No. 10983-VCP

July 14, 2015

Page 11

In the circumstances of this case, Plaintiffs seek both preliminary and 

permanent injunctive relief barring Defendant from continuing to require them to 

wear GPS-monitoring ankle bracelets. As previously discussed, a declaratory 

judgment in Superior Court that the GPS Monitoring Statute is unconstitutional, 

coupled with Defendant‟s presumed adherence to such a ruling, might provide an 

adequate remedy at law in comparison to a permanent injunction.20 I know of no 

basis to conclude, however, that the Superior Court could provide the equivalent of 

a preliminary injunction. In that regard, Plaintiffs would face a difficult challenge 

in trying to meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction in this case. 

 

(citing Diebold Computer Leasing, Inc., 267 A.2d 586); see also, e.g., 

Nelson v. Russo, 844 A.2d 301, 302 (Del. 2004) (same); Shearin v. Mother 

AUMP Church, 755 A.2d 390 (Del. 2000) (same).

20 It also might not be true that Plaintiffs would be able to proceed in that 

manner. Even though 10 Del. C. § 6501 enables courts to render declaratory 

judgments, it does not obviate the need for a real case or controversy. See 

Stroud v. Milliken Enters., Inc., 552 A.2d 476, 479 (Del. 1989) (“While the 

Declaratory Judgment statute . . . may be employed as a procedural device to 

advance the stage at which a matter is traditionally justiciable, the statute is 

not to be used as a means of eliciting advisory opinions from the courts.”) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). For example, Plaintiffs 

conceivably might have to base a claim for declaratory relief in the Superior 

Court on a damages claim against Defendant. Such a claim likely would be 

subject to a defense of qualified immunity, which, if successful, might mean 

that the Court would not reach the constitutional issue underlying Plaintiffs‟ 

claim here for injunctive relief.
Doe, et al. v. Coupe

Civil Action No. 10983-VCP

July 14, 2015

Page 12

Nevertheless, they have stated at least a colorable claim for such relief. Thus, I am 

not persuaded there is an adequate and equivalent remedy at law here.

Reed v. Brady,

21 on which Defendant relies, also supports my conclusion. In 

that case, the plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Delaware 

Attorney General. After examining the nature of the plaintiff‟s claims in Reed, in 

accordance with Comdisco and other cases I have relied on here, the Court 

concluded that each of the bases for the plaintiff‟s complaint was “nothing more 

than a legal claim dressed in equitable clothing.”22 It was on that basis—not 

because of the Declaratory Judgment Act and the purportedly “self-executing” 

nature of declaratory judgments rendered by our courts of law—that the Court 

found no basis for subject matter jurisdiction in the Court of Chancery in the Reed

case. The same was true in Christiana Town Center, LLC v. New Castle County, 

which Defendant also cites in this regard.23 

 

21 2002 WL 1402238, at *3 (Del. Ch. June 21, 2002), aff’d, 818 A.2d 150 (Del. 

2003).

22 Id. at *3-6. One of the four purported claims was dismissed under Rule 

12(b)(6), rather than for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 12(b)(1). 

Id. at *3.

23 Christiana Town Ctr., LLC v. New Castle Cty., 2003 WL 21314499, at *4 

(Del. Ch. June 6, 2003) (“[A] plain reading [of the complaint] shows that all 
Doe, et al. v. Coupe

Civil Action No. 10983-VCP

July 14, 2015

Page 13

Neither Christiana Town Center nor Reed stands for the proposition that 

Defendant seems to be urging in this case, which appears to be that, in any case 

where the defendant is a government agency and the plaintiff conceivably could 

obtain a declaratory judgment as to a legal issue against that defendant in Superior 

Court, the Court of Chancery is divested of subject matter jurisdiction regardless of 

the true nature of the relief being sought. Such a proposition is contrary to Diebold

and numerous later decisions of the Delaware Supreme Court. In my opinion, 

Reed, Christiana Town Center, Diebold, and every other case the parties cite here 

follow the same rule: “In deciding whether or not equitable jurisdiction exists, the 

Court must look beyond the remedies nominally being sought, and focus upon the 

allegations of the complaint in light of what the plaintiff really seeks to gain by 

bringing his or her claim.”24

As discussed above, when I apply that rule to the particular circumstances of 

this case, I come to a different conclusion as to the true nature of Plaintiff‟s claims 

here than did the Court in Reed or Christiana Town Center. Nor do I dispute that 

 

[the plaintiff] realistically seeks is a declaratory judgment as to the meaning 

and scope of the UDC Clean Hands Provision.”), aff’d, 841 A.2d 307 (Del. 

2004).

24 Candlewood Timber Gp., LLC, 859 A.2d at 997.
Doe, et al. v. Coupe

Civil Action No. 10983-VCP

July 14, 2015

Page 14

in this case and others like it, subject matter jurisdiction also might be proper in 

Superior Court. For that reason, I disagree with Defendant‟s assertion that, 

“Plaintiff‟s argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would bar any declaratory 

judgment action in Superior Court because a party would simply argue that, 

because the Superior Court cannot issue injunctions, it cannot enforce a 

declaration.”25 The preliminary showing that a plaintiff must make is that subject 

matter jurisdiction is proper in this Court based on: (1) a statutory grant of 

jurisdiction; (2) the invocation by a plaintiff of an equitable right; or (3) a request 

for an equitable remedy to redress a harm for which there is no adequate remedy at 

law. If this Court finds that one or more of those criteria are met in the case at 

hand, it does not follow, as Defendant suggests, that an action for declaratory 

judgment in Superior Court necessarily would be barred. What follows is simply 

that the action also may proceed in this Court. Plaintiff has made the requisite 

preliminary showing that subject matter jurisdiction exists in the Court of 

Chancery. Thus, Defendant has not shown he is entitled to a dismissal for lack of 

jurisdiction.

 

25 Def.‟s Reply Br. 3.
Doe, et al. v. Coupe

Civil Action No. 10983-VCP

July 14, 2015

Page 15

A related objection raised by Defendants is that, if this case is allowed to 

proceed in the Court of Chancery, it will amount to a usurpation of the Superior 

Court‟s authority to adjudicate and enforce Delaware‟s criminal statutes, and 

would open the floodgates to similar claims by criminal defendants who seek some 

relief from the Department of Correction or other law enforcement bodies. 

Understandably, this Court historically has been careful not to interject itself into 

the law enforcement functions that properly fall within the jurisdiction of 

Delaware‟s courts of law. This case does not threaten to disrupt that balance. It is 

not a criminal action. Plaintiffs here do not challenge any aspect of their criminal 

sentences; indeed at least one of those sentences are for convictions rendered 

outside of Delaware, and all of them pre-date the enactment of the GPS Monitoring 

Statute. Plaintiffs here challenge the requirement that they must wear GPS ankle 

bracelets, which requirement the Department of Correction administers in a 

ministerial capacity. The fact of Plaintiffs‟ current status as parolees or 

probationers is one that may or may not impact the analysis of the merits of this 

case. That fact, however, does not convert this civil action in which Plaintiffs seek 

equitable relief into an “active criminal matter,” as Defendant seems to argue. 
Doe, et al. v. Coupe

Civil Action No. 10983-VCP

July 14, 2015

Page 16

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant‟s motion to dismiss is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Sincerely,

/s/ Donald F. Parsons, Jr.

Donald F. Parsons, Jr.

Vice Chancellor

DFP/ptp