LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge.
WHEREAS, Chief Magistrate Judge Thynge issued a Report and Recommendation (the "Report") (D.I. 226), dated March 7, 2013, recommending Plaintiff Chase Bank USA N.A.'s ("Chase" or "Plaintiff') motion for summary judgment be granted with respect to Chase's claims of tortious interference with contractual relations (Count I), abuse of process (Count III), and conspiracy (Count VI);
WHEREAS, the Report further recommends that Chase's motion for summary judgment be denied with respect to Chase's claims of unjust enrichment (Count II), violation of Delaware's Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Count IV), and Delaware's Consumer Fraud Act (Count V);
WHEREAS, the Report further recommends that certain injunctive relief be granted to Chase, limited to those counts for which summary judgment is granted;
WHEREAS, the Report further recommends that certain declaratory relief also be granted to Chase;
WHEREAS, the Report further recommends that Chase's motion to strike Defendant Laura L. Hess' ("Hess" or "Defendant") answer (D.I. 204) be denied as moot, with leave to renew if necessary;
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2013, Hess filed objections to the Report (D.I. 227), to which Chase responded on April 11, 2013 (D.I. 229);
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2013, Chase filed objections to the Report (D.I. 228), limited to the recommended scope of the injunctive relief, to which Hess did not respond;
WHEREAS, the Court has considered the motion for summary judgment (D.I. 213) and motion to strike the answer (D.I. 204) de novo, as they present case-dispositive issues, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3), and has further reviewed all of the pertinent filings;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Hess' objections (D.I. 227) are OVERRULED.
2. Chase's objections (D.I. 228) are GRANTED.
3. Chase's motion to strike (D.I. 204) is DENIED. The Report (D.I. 226 at 17-21) details the lack of prejudice to Chase as well as the untimely nature, under the circumstances, of the request to strike Hess' answer.
4. Chase's motion for summary judgment (D.I. 213) is GRANTED IN PART, specifically with respect to the claims of tortious interference with contractual relations, abuse of process, and conspiracy (Counts I, III, and VI). The Court agrees with the Report that the record contains sufficient evidence from which a reasonable finder of fact could find for Chase on each of the essential elements of each of the foregoing claims. The Court further agrees that Hess has failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of any material fact. The Court is unpersuaded by Hess' contentions that it was error for the Report to consider the consent judgments and that the consent judgments are the only evidence of record supporting Chase's claims. Additionally, the Court concludes that ...