Title: Lechliter v. Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources & Environmental Control, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 104, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 22, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GERALD A. LECHLITER, 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF 
NATURAL RESOURCES & 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, 
COLLIN O’MARA, DAVID 
SMALL, CHARLES SALKIN, 
CITY OF LEWES, UNIVERSITY 
OF DELAWARE, PATRICK T. 
HARKER, SCOTT R. DOUGLASS, 
NANCY M. TARGETT, BLUE 
HEN WIND, INC., FIRST STATE 
MARINE WIND, LLC, and 
GAMESA TECHNOLOGY 
CORPORATION, INC. 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 104, 2016 
§ 
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§     
§  C.A. No. 7939 
§   
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: June 10, 2016 
Decided: 
August 22, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 22nd day of August 2016, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and 
the record below, we find it evident that the judgment of the Court of Chancery 
should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned in the well-
2 
 
reasoned decision dated December 31, 2015.1  The Court of Chancery’s thorough 
decision 
exemplifies 
how 
seriously 
it 
treated 
the 
plaintiff’s 
claims.   
Notwithstanding that, the plaintiff faults the Court of Chancery for not formally 
notifying him that it would treat certain defendants’ motion to dismiss as a motion 
for summary judgment, even though the plaintiff answered that motion (and a 
related summary judgment motion by other defendants) by filing a brief with a 
large appendix of documents outside of his complaint.  Whatever technical lack of 
notice provided by the Court of Chancery was harmless, as the record makes clear 
that the plaintiff and the defendants were aware of the record that was being 
considered, the only exhibits cited by the defendants who moved to dismiss were 
incorporated in and integral to the plaintiff’s complaint, some of the defendants 
explicitly moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff himself asked the Court of 
Chancery to consider additional documents in addressing the motions, and the 
record read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff supports the Court of 
Chancery’s conclusion that there were no circumstances in which the plaintiff 
could succeed on his claims.2 
 
 
                                                 
1 Lechliter v. Delaware Dept. of Natural Res. & Envtl. Control, 2015 WL 9591587 (Del. Ch. 
Dec. 31, 2015). 
2 See Appriva S’holder Litig. Co. v. EV3, Inc., 937 A.2d 1275, 1288 (Del. 2008) (holding error in 
conversion of Rule 12(b)(6) motion without notice is harmless when there is no set of facts on 
which plaintiff could recover). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 
Chancery is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice