Title: Paoli v. Sun Communities
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 57, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 11, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHRISTINA PAOLI, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
SUN COMMUNITIES d/b/a SEA 
AIR VILLAGE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 57, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  C.A. No. 05C-01-029 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 30, 2007 
Decided: September 11, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 11th day of September 2007, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:1 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Christina Paoli, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s December 9, 2005 order granting the motion for summary 
judgment of defendant-appellee Sun Communities (“Sun”).  Sun has moved 
to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest 
                                                 
1 We also have considered the appellant’s response to the motion to affirm, which was 
filed with the permission of the Court.  Supr. Ct. R. 25(a) (iii). 
 
2
on the face of Paoli’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.2  We 
agree and AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Paoli rented space from Sun on which 
she stored a travel trailer.  On May 9, 2003, Paoli filed a complaint against 
Sun and the Delaware State Police in the Sussex County Superior Court.  In 
the complaint, Paoli alleged that the Delaware State Police caused physical 
injury to her and her father, falsely accused her of illegal activity, and caused 
damage to her property.  Paoli also alleged that Sun gave false information 
about her to the police, illegally took possession of her property, and caused 
damage to her property.  Paoli claimed damages for false arrest, 
reimbursement for damage to her trailer and its contents, and reimbursement 
for medical bills and lost income.  On November 24, 2003, the Sussex 
County Superior Court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute.3         
  
(3) 
On January 19, 2005, Paoli filed a second complaint against 
Sun and the Delaware State Police, this time in the Kent County Superior 
Court.4  Sun filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under the doctrine of res 
judicata.  On November 4, 2005, Paoli and the attorney for Sun appeared in 
the Kent County Superior Court on Sun’s motion to dismiss.  After hearing 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 The plaintiff failed twice to respond to the defendant’s request for a more definite 
statement.  Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(e). 
4 It also appears that complaints were filed in the Sussex County Justice of the Peace 
Court and the Sussex County Court of Common Pleas.      
 
3
argument, the Superior Court allowed the parties 30 days in which to 
supplement the record prior to issuing its decision.  On December 9, 2005, 
the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Sun.5   
 
(4) 
In this appeal, Paoli presents several claims that may be fairly 
summarized as follows: a) the Superior Court abused its discretion by not 
permitting her to submit evidence of damages that came to light subsequent 
to a June 17, 2005 settlement agreement between her and Sun; b) Sun 
waived its defense of res judicata by entering into the settlement agreement; 
c) the Superior Court abused its discretion by attributing procedural errors to 
her rather than to her attorneys, both of whom have been suspended from the 
practice of law.     
 
(5) 
Under the doctrine of res judicata, a party is foreclosed from 
bringing a second suit based on the same cause of action after a judgment 
has been entered in a prior suit involving the same parties.6  Res judicata 
operates to bar a claim where the following five-point test is satisfied: a) the 
original court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; b) the 
parties to the original action were the same as, or in privity with, those 
parties in the case at bar; c) the original cause of action, or the issues 
                                                 
5 Having considered matters outside the pleadings, the Superior Court treated the motion 
to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment.  Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(c). 
6 Betts v. Townsends, Inc., 765 A.2d 531, 534 (Del. 2000). 
 
4
decided, were the same as in the case at bar; d) the issues in the prior action 
were decided adversely to the plaintiffs; and e) the decree in the prior action 
was a final decree.7  Summary judgment will be granted where, after 
viewing the record in the light most 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.8      
 
(6) 
We are not persuaded by Paoli’s claims of abuse of discretion 
on the part of the Superior Court.  Moreover, her claim that Sun waived its 
defense of res judicata was never decided by the Superior Court in the first 
instance.  As such, we decline to address it for the first time in this appeal.9  
Having closely compared the two complaints filed by Paoli, we conclude 
that the Superior Court correctly determined that the five-point test was 
satisfied and that the doctrine of res judicata precluded Paoli’s second 
lawsuit.  While the form of the two complaints is different,10 the claims 
asserted are essentially identical, as is the request for relief.  We also 
conclude that, in the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and 
viewing the record in the light most favorable to Paoli, the Superior Court 
correctly granted Sun’s motion for summary judgment.     
                                                 
7 Dover Historical Soc., Inc. v. City of Dover Planning Com’n., 902 A.2d 1084, 1092 
(Del. 2006). 
8 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56; Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 470 (Del. 1962). 
9 Supr. Ct. R. 8. 
10 It appears that Paoli drafted the first complaint and her attorney drafted the second. 
 
5
 
(7) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), Sun’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of 
the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice