Court Opinion

ID: 9926190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 00:02:34.564247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:10.645539
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SHERI LYN NEUMOYER,                                   )
                                                      )
                  Plaintiff,                          )
                                                      )
                                                      )
                        v.                            ) C.A. No. N23C-06-050 JRJ
                                                      )
J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT                                   )
SERVICES, INC., a foreign Corporation,                )
SAMUEL KEODOUANGSY, an                                )
individual, and RALPH VAUGHN HILL,                    )
an individual,                                        )
                                                      )
                  Defendants.                         )

                               Date Submitted: January 10, 2024
                                Date Decided: January 23, 2024

                                             ORDER
         Upon consideration of Defendant Ralph Vaughn Hill’s (“Hill”) Motion to

Vacate Default Judgment, Plaintiff Neumoyer’s Opposition thereto (“Opposition”),

and the record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT:

         (1)     On July 1, 2021, while Hill was driving on Route 7, he and his

passenger, Neumoyer, were involved in a motor vehicle accident when their vehicle

collided with a tractor operated by Keodouangsy, allegedly resulting in injuries to

Neumoyer.1

1
    Def.’s Mot. to Vacate Default J. ¶ 1, Trans. ID 71666197 (Dec. 20, 2023) (“Def.’s Mot.”).
       (2)    On June 6, 2023, Neumoyer commenced the instant suit against J.B.

Hunt, Keodouangsy, and Hill asserting their negligence caused her injuries.2

Included in Neumoyer’s filings were a Praecipe and Summons to serve all

defendants including Hill.3

       (3)    On June 22, 2023, the Sheriff left process for Hill with Helen Passmore

(“Passmore”) at 14 Tamarack Ave, Wilmington, DE 19805.4 Hill resided in the

basement of this residence.5

       (4)    On November 2, 2023, Neumoyer filed a Motion for Default Judgment6

and on November 6, 2023, Neumoyer mailed via first class mail and registered mail

courtesy copies of the motion.7

       (5)    Following no response by Hill, the Court granted Neumoyer’s motion

and entered Default Judgment against Hill on November 29, 2023.8

       (6)    On December 20, 2023, Hill filed a Motion to Vacate Default

Judgment, claiming that he was not notified of service of the Complaint and did not

receive the alleged copies of Neumoyer’s Motion for Default Judgment sent through

2
  Complaint, Trans. ID 70144594 (June 6, 2023).
3
  Id.
4
  Sheriff’s Return, Trans. ID 70248325 (June 23, 2023).
5
  Def.’s Mot. ¶ 4.
6
  Pl.’s Mot. for Default J., Trans. ID 71301776 (November 2, 2023).
7
  Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Default J. Ex. C., Trans. ID 17140036 (Jan. 4, 2024) (“Pl.’s
Opp’n”).
8
  Order Granting Pl.’s Mot. for Default J., Trans. ID 71505762 (Nov. 29, 2023).

                                             2
the mail.9 He argues that there was excusable neglect and a meritorious defense

under Rule 60(b) because, while he originally received a traffic violation for

following too closely behind, the ticket was dismissed and Neumoyer agrees that

Hill was not following too closely behind when the accident occurred.10

       (7)     Neumoyer filed an Opposition on January 4, 2024, arguing Hill has no

basis for excusable neglect under Rule 60(b) because the Complaint was properly

served under Superior Court Civil Rule 4.11

       (8)     A motion to vacate default judgment pursuant to Superior Court Civil

Rule 60(b)(1) is assessed at the discretion of the Court.12 To grant a motion under

Rule 60(b), there are three elements the movant must show:

       “(1) excusable neglect in the conduct that allowed the default judgment
       to be taken; (2) a meritorious defense to the action that would allow a
       different outcome to the litigation if the matter was heard on its merits;
       and (3) a showing that a substantial prejudice will not be suffered by
       the plaintiff if the motion is granted.”13

The Court will only reach the second two prongs if the movant is able to show

excusable neglect.14

9
  Def.’s Mot. ¶¶ 7-9.
10
   Id. ¶¶ 10-14.
11
   Pl.’s Opp’n at 3-6
12
   Super. Ct. Civ. R. 60(b)(1); Battaglia v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, 379 A.2d 1132, 1135 (Del.
1977)
13
   Verizon Delaware, Inc. v. Baldwin Line Constr. Co., 2004 WL 838610, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr.
13, 2004).
14
   Apartment Cmtys. Corp. v. Martinelli, 859 A.2d 67, 72 (Del. 2004).

                                                3
      (9)    A movant may demonstrate excusable neglect by showing their actions

“might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.”15

Any doubt must be resolved in favor of the movant, but the movant is not allowed

to disregard the process of the Court, meaning “a mere showing of negligence or

carelessness without a valid reason may be deemed insufficient.”16

      (10) Under Superior Court Civil Rule 4(f)(I), service of a complaint may be

effectuated upon an individual personally or “by leaving copies thereof at that

individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable

age and discretion then residing therein.”17

      (11) Hill does not dispute that he lived at the address where the Complaint

was served, nor does he dispute that Passmore lived at the residence and was

someone of suitable age to accept the Complaint.18

      (12) While Hill argues that the last two prongs are met since he has a

meritorious defense and there is no prejudice to the plaintiff, the Court is unable to

reach those conclusions. For the Court to examine the second and third prongs, Hill

must first show that there was excusable neglect.19

15
   McMartin v. Quinn, 2004 WL 249576, at * 1 (Del. Super. Feb. 3, 2004) (internal citations
omitted).
16
   Cohen v. Brandywine Raceway Ass'n, 238 A.2d 320, 325 (Del. Super. 1968).
17
   Super. Ct. Civ. R. 4(f)(I).
18
   See generally Def.’s Mot.
19
   Martinelli, 859 A.2d at 72.

                                            4
          (13) A Sheriff left copies with Passmore, who was of suitable age and

residing within the residence with Hill.20 While Hill may claim that Passmore did

not provide him with notice of the Complaint, the Complaint was properly served

pursuant to Superior Court Rule 4. Given the facts here, Hill is unable to establish

excusable neglect and his Motion must be denied.

          THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Hill’s Motion

to Vacate Default Judgment is DENIED.

          IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                   /s/ Jan R. Jurden
                                             Jan R. Jurden, President Judge

cc: Prothonotary

20
     Sheriff’s Return.

                                         5