Title: Cassidy v. E.I duPont & Co.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 519, 2008
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 8, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHRISTOPHER CASSIDY, 
 
§ 
JEANNE CASSIDY, and JAMES 
§ 
No. 519, 2008 
DWYER, 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
Appellants,  
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
E. I. du PONT de NEMOURS  
§ 
AND COMPANY, 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. 05C-10-090 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 2, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 8, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 8th day of June 2009, the Court has considered the opening brief 
and the motion to affirm or, in the alternative, to dismiss the appeal, and it 
appears to the Court that:   
 
(1) 
The pro se defendants/appellants, Christopher Cassidy, Jeanne 
Cassidy and James Dwyer (collectively “the appellants”), filed this appeal 
from the Superior Court’s order of September 15, 2008 that granted 
summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff/appellee-E. I. du Pont de 
 
2
Nemours and Company (DuPont).1  DuPont has filed a motion to affirm the 
Superior Court judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the 
opening brief that the appeal is without merit.2  Having agreed that the 
appeal is without merit, we do not address DuPont’s motion to dismiss. 
 
(2) 
In 1993, DuPont entered into a contract with J.C.D., Inc. (JCD), 
a business that was formed by appellants-Christopher Cassidy and James 
Dwyer.  The contract authorized JCD to distribute DuPont refinishing 
products that JCD purchased on credit from DuPont.  As part of the contract, 
the appellants entered into personal guaranties that promised to pay JCD’s 
debts to DuPont. 
 
(3) 
In October 2005, DuPont filed a complaint in the Superior 
Court against the appellants to recover $692,506.61 for unpaid refinishing 
products that JCD had ordered from DuPont.  By order dated September 15, 
2008, the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of DuPont. 
 
(4) 
After a careful review of the record de novo, it is manifest to the 
Court that DuPont’s motion to affirm should be granted.3  Summary 
judgment is granted where, after viewing the record in the light most 
                                          
 
1 In the same order, the Superior Court granted DuPont a default judgment against 
corporate defendants, J.C.D., Inc. and Terrels Pro Finishes, Inc.  
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 Sanders v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 2004 WL 2921832 (Del. Supr.) 
(citing Stroud v. Grace, 606 A.2d 75, 81 (Del. 1992)). 
 
3
favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact 
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.4  In this 
case, it is clear that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the 
appellants’ liability.  DuPont was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                          
 
4 Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c).