Court Opinion

ID: 4403287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-06-04 20:02:48.439372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:49:18.798831
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ANTHONY SORANTINO,                          )
        Plaintiff,                          )
                                            )
      v.                                    )       C.A. No. N18C-10-022 ALR
                                            )
TERRANCE NEWTON, et ux.,                    )
        Defendants.                         )

                             Submitted: May 21, 2019
                              Decided: June 4, 2019

                       Upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
                                  DENIED

                                      ORDER

      Upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Terrance

Newton and Paula Dumpson-Newton (“Defendants”); the response thereto filed by

Plaintiff Anthony Sorantino (“Plaintiff”); the facts and arguments set forth by the

parties; statutory and decisional law; and the entire record in this case, the Court

hereby finds as follows:

      1.     On October 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against Defendants

alleging breach of contract claims as a result of nonpayment for construction services

furnished. The contractual obligation arose as a result of a verbal agreement between

Plaintiff and Defendant Terrance Newton.

      2.     On January 22, 2019, Defendant Terrance Newton filed an Answer

denying the allegations in the complaint.
      3.      On January 24, 2019, Defendant Paula Dumpson-Newton filed an

Answer asserting that she is not a party to the contract at issue.

      4.      On May 8, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (“Motion to

Dismiss”) Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff was compensated for

the work performed, thereby satisfying the contract.

      5.      On May 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the Motion

to Dismiss.

      6.      On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted,1 the Court must read the complaint generously, accept all well-plead

allegations contained therein as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in a light

most favorable to the non-moving party.2 A complaint is well-pled if it puts the

opposing party on notice of the claim being brought against it. 3 Dismissal is

warranted only “when the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any

reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof.”4 Allegations that

are merely conclusory and lacking factual basis will not survive a motion to dismiss.5

1
  Super. Ct. Civil R. 12(b)(6).
2
  In re Gen. Motors (Hughes) S’holder Litig., 897 A.2d 162, 168 (Del. 2006).
3
  Diamond State Tel. Co. v. Univ. of Del., 269 A.2d 52, 58 (Del. 1970).
4
  Ridley v. Bayhealth Med. Ctr., Inc., 2018 WL 1567609, at *3 (Del. Super. Mar. 20,
2018) (internal citations omitted).
5
  Cornell Glasgow, LLC v. La Grange Properties, LLC, 2012 WL 2106945, at *7
(Del. Super. June 6, 2012) (internal citations omitted).

                                           2
      7.     To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a breach of contract

claim, the plaintiff must establish: (1) existence of an express or implied contract;

(2) breach of an obligation imposed by the contract; and (3) damages incurred as a

result of the breach.6 “An action for damages is the most fundamental remedy for

breach of contract.”7 To recover damages in connection with the alleged breach of

contract, the plaintiff must demonstrate substantial compliance with all provisions

of the contract.8

      8.     Assuming the well pleaded facts are true, Plaintiff’s complaint

establishes a potentially viable cause of action against Defendants for breach of

contract. Plaintiff alleges that he entered into a contract with Defendants to provide

construction services. At the conclusion of that contract, Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants did not pay for the full cost of Plaintiff’s services. Plaintiff is seeking

money damages in connection with the alleged breach of contract. At this stage in

the proceedings, Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to support a claim for breach of

contract against Defendants.

6
  VLIW Tech., LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 840 A.2d 606, 612 (Del. 2003).
7
  Vinton v. Grayson, 189 A.3d 695, 702 (Del. Super. 2018).
8
  Shah v. Am. Solutions, Inc., 2012 WL 1413593, at *2 (Del. Super. Mar. 8, 2012).

                                          3
      NOW, THEREFORE, this 4th day of June, 2019, Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss is hereby DENIED.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                                                                                          Andrea L. Rocanelli
                                       ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ____

                                       The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli

cc:   Anthony Sorantino
      Terrance Newton
      Paula Dumpson-Newton

                                   4