Title: Gallagher v. Long, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 383, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 6, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT GALLAGHER a/k/a 
BOBBY FREEMAN and BETTY 
FRANKLIN, 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
RICHARD S. LONG, as trustee for 
THE RICHARD S. and CYNTHIA 
A. LONG TRUST, and LGF 
ENTERPRISES, LLC, 
 
Plaintiffs Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 383, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below-Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 2553 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 18, 2007 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    November 6, 2007 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 6th day of November 2007, upon consideration of the appellants’ 
opening brief and the appellees’ motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendants-appellants, Robert Gallagher a/k/a Bobby 
Freeman and Betty Franklin (the “Gallaghers”), have filed an appeal from 
the Court of Chancery’s July 25, 2007 revised final judgment and order, 
which held them in civil contempt and entered final judgment in favor of the 
plaintiffs-appellees, Richard S. Long, as trustee for the Richard S. and 
 
2
Cynthia A. Long Trust, and LGF Enterprises, LLC (the “Longs”), on all 
claims and awarded the Longs their costs and attorney’s fees.  The Longs 
have moved to affirm the Court of Chancery’s judgment on the ground that 
it is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without 
merit.1  We agree and affirm.   
 
(2) 
The record reflects that the Longs filed suit against the 
Gallaghers seeking a declaration that certain agreements of the parties 
relating to celebrity memorabilia were legally valid and binding and also 
seeking specific performance of those agreements.  The Gallaghers sought 
reformation or rescission of the agreements and asserted counterclaims 
against the Longs of conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional 
interference with prospective economic advantage.  The Longs were later 
permitted to amend their complaint to add a claim seeking judicial 
dissolution of LGF Enterprises, LLC.    
 
(3) 
The record further reflects that, on March 27, 2007, following 
full notice and a hearing (at which the Gallaghers did not appear), the Court 
of Chancery entered an order requiring the Gallaghers to make available for 
inspection the items of celebrity memorabilia at issue for the purpose of 
obtaining insurance.  Despite being duly notified of the Court of Chancery’s 
order, the Gallaghers did not make the items available for inspection.  
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
3
Moreover, the Gallaghers failed to appear for their properly noticed 
depositions on March 28 and 29, 2007.  As a result, on May 10, 2007, 
following full notice and a hearing (at which the Gallaghers again did not 
appear), the Court of Chancery adjudged the Gallaghers in civil contempt 
and ordered them to deliver possession of all of the memorabilia to the 
Longs and, in addition, ordered them to attend their re-scheduled depositions 
on May 30 and 31, 2007.   
 
(4) 
Following the Gallaghers’ failure either to deliver the 
memorabilia to the Longs or to attend their depositions, despite being duly 
notified of the Court of Chancery’s order, the Longs filed a motion 
requesting the Court of Chancery to again hold the Gallaghers in contempt.  
The Court of Chancery scheduled a hearing for July 19, 2007 on the motion.  
The Gallaghers requested a continuance of the hearing date, but did not 
otherwise respond to the Longs’ motion.  Yet again, the Gallaghers failed to 
appear at the hearing.  On July 25, 2007, the Court of Chancery granted the 
Longs’ motion to hold them in contempt.  The Court of Chancery also, in 
light of the Gallaghers’ “repeated contumacious disregard” of its orders, 
entered final judgment on all claims in favor of the Longs, granted 
dissolution of LGF Enterprises, LLC, and awarded the Longs all of their 
costs and attorney’s fees. 
 
4
 
(5) 
In this appeal, the Gallaghers claim that a) the contempt was 
excusable and should not have resulted in the imposition of a default 
judgment; b) the Court of Chancery violated their due process rights by 
entering a default judgment without hearing any evidence; and c) justice 
requires a full trial on the merits. 
 
(6) 
We review the Court of Chancery’s entry of default judgment 
against a party for failure to abide by its orders for abuse of discretion.2  A 
trial judge has broad discretion to impose sanctions for failure to abide by its 
orders.3  However, the trial judge’s decision to impose sanctions must be just 
and reasonable.4  This Court has held that there must be an element of 
willfulness or conscious disregard of a court order before entry of judgment 
is warranted.5  Moreover, we have held that entry of judgment is too extreme 
a sanction where counsel, and not the party, bears the primary responsibility 
for failing to comply with the court’s orders.6       
 
(7) 
The record in this case reflects no abuse of discretion on the 
part of the Court of Chancery.  To the contrary, the Court of Chancery 
demonstrated commendable patience and forbearance in its dealings with the 
                                                 
2 Lehman Capital v. Lofland, 906 A.2d 122, 131 (Del. 2006) (citing In re Rinehardt, 575 
A.2d 1079, 1082 (Del. 1990) and Rittenhouse Associates v. Frederic A. Potts & Co., Inc., 
382 A.2d 235, 236 (Del. 1977)). 
3 Id. 
4 Id. 
5 Sundor Electric, Inc. v. E.J.T. Construction Co., Inc., 337 A.2d 651, 652 (Del. 1975). 
6 Rittenhouse Associates v. Frederic A. Potts & Co., Inc., 382 A.2d at 236-37. 
 
5
Gallaghers.  Only when the Gallaghers had clearly demonstrated an extreme 
degree of willfulness and conscious disregard for the Court of Chancery’s 
orders did the Court of Chancery impose its sanctions.  While the sanctions 
were severe, we do not find them to be unjust or unreasonable under the 
circumstances of this case.  Moreover, the record reflects no violation of due 
process.  It is undisputed that the Gallaghers were duly notified of every 
hearing scheduled and every order issued by the Court of Chancery.  They 
chose not to appear for the hearings or comply with the court’s orders and, 
as such, bear sole responsibility for the sanctions ultimately imposed. 
 
(8) 
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), the motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the 
Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
                                      Justice