Submitted: June 18, 2013
Michelle D. Allen, Esq., Law Offices of Michelle D. Allen, LLC, Hockessin, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Jared T. Green, Esq., Seitz Van Ogtrop & Green, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Karl Ownens ("Plaintiff") filed a pro se Complaint against his former employer, Carman Ford, Inc. ("Defendant"), on December 27, 2012. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant Superior Court Rule 12(b)(6) on January 29, 2013. The Court heard oral argument on the Motion on March 26, 2013. At the conclusion of oral argument, the Court passed the Motion for sixty days, requiring Plaintiff to file a written response to the Motion and to indicate why the Court should exercise jurisdiction over the claim. The Court received Plaintiff's written response on May 24, 2013 and Defendant's response on June 18, 2013. Based on the contentions made at oral argument and in the written submissions of the parties, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
II. Facts  & Procedural History
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from June 2008 until October 2010. Plaintiff quit working following his refusal to reimburse Defendant for damage to a customer's car. Plaintiff unsuccessfully filed for unemployment benefits. A Claims Deputy determined that Plaintiff was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he voluntarily left his job with Defendant without good cause. An Appeals Referee affirmed the Claims Deputy's decision. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the Appeals Referee's decision, and this Court affirmed the Board's decision.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff "seeks repayment for wages reduced by false pretenses, damages by reducing future employment opportunities by not providing negotiated and required training, emotional damages and other damages."
III. Standard of Review
Upon a motion to dismiss, the Court's role is to determine whether the plaintiff may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under the Complaint. If recovery is possible, the Court must deny the motion to dismiss. When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court will accept all well-pleaded allegations as true.In addition, every reasonable factual inference will be drawn in favor of the plaintiff.
A. Plaintiff's Section 8111 Claims for Lost Wages, ...