Court Opinion

ID: 9367090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-30 20:03:00.866094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:57.174580
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DENNIS C. HUDSON, DENISE              §
LYNN DUTTON, JUAN                     §
LOPEZ, and HOMERO                     §
and MARIA RAMIREZ,                    §
                                      §   No. 226, 2022
            Plaintiffs Below,         §
            Appellants,               §   Court Below—Court of Chancery
                                      §   of the State of Delaware
            v.                        §
                                      §   C.A. No: 2021-0800
THE STATE OF DELAWARE                 §
DEPARTMENT OF                         §
TRANSPORTATION,                       §
                                      §
            Defendant Below,          §
            Appellee, and             §
                                      §
MEDING FAMILY, LLC,                   §
a Delaware limited liability company, §
KAY-DE-DID, LLC,                      §
a Delaware limited liability company, §
ROB’S RIDES, LLC,                     §
a Delaware limited liability company, §
and ROBERT WAYNE MEDING               §
and MELINDA MEDING,                   §
                                      §
            Nominal Defendants        §
            Below, Nominal            §
            Appellees,                §

                        Submitted: December 14, 2022
                        Decided:   January 30, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR, Justices.
                                            ORDER

         This 30th day of January 2023, after consideration of the parties’ briefs and the

record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

         1.      This order incorporates the factual background and reasoning set forth

in our order, filed today, in JMER Properties, LLC v. Del. Dep’t of Transp., No. 225,

2022 (the “JMER Order”).

         2.      When, as described in the JMER Order, the Court of Chancery

dismissed JMER’s action as unripe, it also dismissed a similar action brought by the

appellants—a group of homeowners who reside near the Medings’ property—

against the same defendants.1 Although never formally consolidated, the two actions

were heard together in the Court of Chancery.

         3.      The homeowners own three homes on the southern border of the

Meding property, each with direct access to State Route 1 through their driveways.

The gravamen of the homeowners’ complaint is that the Medings’ proposed new

entrance would require the homeowners to close their direct driveway access to State

Route 1 and re-orient access to their properties through their backyards and onto a

secondary road network.

         4.      DelDOT’s position throughout this case, however, has been

unequivocal: it has no plans to close the homeowners’ driveways or eliminate the

1
    Opening Br., Ex. 1.
                                             2
homeowners’ access to State Route 1. The Court of Chancery pledged to hear the

homeowners’ complaint in the event that DelDOT ever reversed course and

eliminated the homeowners’ direct access to State Route 1. Until then, and for the

reasons stated in the JMER Order, the homeowners’ action is not ripe.

      NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of

Chancery be AFFIRMED.

                                            BY THE COURT:

                                            /s/ Gary F. Traynor
                                                  Justice

                                        3