ROY A. DAY, Plaintiff,
WILLIAM LOUCKS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION DISMISSING THIS CIVIL ACTION
M. Davis, Judge.
a civil action brought by Plaintiff Roy A. Day. Mr. Day
contends that Defendants William Loucks, Anthony J. DeSantis,
and 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company
("21stCentury") breached a contract
between Mr. Day and the Defendants. Mr. Day also asserts
various tort claims. Mr. Day seeks over $125, 000, 000 in
compensatory damages and $1, 000, 000, 000 in punitive
damages. The contract dispute purports to arise out of the
claims handling process between 21st Century and
Mr. Day over damages to a 2010 Hyundai Accent and a 2015
filed the Complaint in this civil action on October 13, 2016.
On October 31, 2016, Mr. Day filed an Amended Complaint.
According to the docket in this civil action, the Sheriff for
New Castle County filed a notice of service of the Complaint
on 21st Century on December 28, 2016. The docket
also reflects that Mr. Loucks and Mr. DeSantis have not been
served with either the Complaint or the Amended Complaint.
Mr. Day does not appear to have properly served
21st Century with a copy of the Amended Complaint.
21st Century moved to dismiss the Complaint (the
"Motion to Dismiss") on February 1, 2017. Mr. Day
responded (the "Response") to the Motion to Dismiss
on May 4, 2017.
the Motion to Dismiss, 21st Century makes two
basic arguments for dismissal. First, 21st Century
contends that the Court should dismiss the Complaint because
Mr. Day has been enjoined from filing any such complaint by
Federal and state courts in Delaware and Florida. Second,
21st Century claims, under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) and
10 Del. C. § 8803, that the Complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
opposes the relief sought in the Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Day
argues that the Court does not have "competent
jurisdiction" over the Motion to Dismiss because that
motion seeks dismissal of the Complaint, but the Amended
Complaint is the controlling pleading. Mr. Day contends that
the Court is the correct venue of this civil action as he
believes that 21stCentury, Mr. Loucks and Mr.
DeSantis all reside in Delaware. Mr. Day next addresses
21stCentury's Civil Rule 12(b)(6) arguments,
claiming that he has stated causes of action upon which
relief can be granted. Finally, Mr. Day argues that he has
not been enjoined from filing legal actions in
"forty-eight contiguous States, and the two
non-contiguous State and Federal Court." Mr. Day also
seeks sanctions against 21st Century with those
sanctions as follows: $10, 000 to the Delaware Environmental
Protection Agency (because of the use of
"dead-tree" paper); $10, 000 to the Prothonotary
(because Defendants have made this civil action more
litigious); and $10, 000 to the New Castle County
Sheriff's Office for service of process issues.
Litigations Over Same or Similar Allegations
receiving the Motion to Dismiss, the Court proceeded to
review the various lawsuits involving both Mr. Day and
21st Century, including those cases appellate
history. Specifically, the Court reviewed the following civil
actions: Roy Day v. Loucks, et al., Civ. No.
15-541-LPS (D. Del.); Roy Day v. 21st Century
Centennial Insurance Company, Civ. No. 12-1096-LPS (D.
Del); Day v. 21st Century Centennial Insurance
Company, Civ. No. 8:13-2048-T-36AEP (M.D.
Fla.). For purposes of this decision, these cases
will be referred to as the Day v. Loucks action and
the Day v. 21st Century action.
Court arrived at important conclusions from reviewing these
cases. First, Mr. Day has unsuccessfully sought relief on
claims substantially similar to the claims asserted in the
Complaint and the Amended Complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware (the
"Delaware District Court") and the United States
District Court for the District of Florida (the "Florida
District Court"). There are differences-e.g.,
the claim relating to the 2015 Chevrolet Spark-but, overall,
the Complaint and Amended Complaint are substantially similar
to the claims made in the Day v. Loucks action and
the Day v. 21st Century action. Second,
Mr. Day is subject to orders imposing litigation injunctions
and procedures regarding the filing of claims that arise out
of the facts plead in the Complaint and the Amended
Complaint. In order to proceed on the types of claims raised
in the Complaint and the Amended Complaint (at least in
Federal Court), Mr. Day must provide proof and documentation
that Mr. Day had paid the monetary sanctions imposed upon him
under In re Day, Case No. 95-mc-143 (M.D.
Fla.). Third, Mr. Day continues to file
complaints in various courts, including this Court, in an
effort to avoid the conditions and sanctions imposed upon him
by the Florida District Court.
courts recognize the principle of comity. The Court may
follow the doctrine of comity, which applies when two courts
have "concurrent jurisdiction over the same
matter."The doctrine is not a legal rule but
"an expression of one state's entirely voluntary
decision to defer to the policy of another, especially in the
face of a strong assertion of interest by the other
jurisdiction." A court may use its discretion to stay or
dismiss a matter if the same matter is pending in a different
court because a court "should not assume to disturb
another court's disposition of a controversy unless there
are good reasons for doing so."
Delaware Supreme Court recently applied the doctrine of
comity in two related cases, First Health Settlement
Class v. Chartis Specialty Insurance Company and
Corvel Corporation v. Homeland Insurance Company of New
York. First Health depended on whether
the Delaware Supreme Court should defer to an interpretation
of a Louisiana statute by the Louisiana Court of Appeals from
collateral litigation. In a 3-2 decision with a dissent, the
Delaware Supreme Court adopted the Louisiana court's
interpretation, instead of using Delaware law. Both the majority
and the dissent addressed the doctrine of comity. The Court
acknowledged that "[c]omity permits one state to give
effect to the laws of a sister state, not out of obligation,
but out of respect and deference." The dissent
agreed that comity is important and that courts should try to
avoid conflicting rulings. The dissent disagreed with the
majority because the Louisiana court should have shown comity
to Delaware courts and because following what the Louisiana
court decided would be "demonstrably unfair" to the
parties. The Corvel decision is nearly
identical to the First Health
Court is dismissing this civil action without prejudice under
the principle of comity. The Delaware District Court and the
Florida District Court have strongly asserted an interest in
Mr. Day's conduct in vexatious litigation, especially
against 21st Century, Mr. Loucks, and Mr.
DeSantis. The Court understands that this is not a situation
where it is deferring to the state law of another
jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court is not adopting the entire
litigation injunction imposed in the Federal Courts. The
Court is instead giving effect to the procedures implemented
by the Delaware District Court and the Florida District
Court, not out of obligation, but out of respect and
deference. The Court cannot allow Mr. Day to avoid the
procedures implemented in Federal Court by merely bringing
the same claim here that he could not pursue in Roy Day
v. Loucks, et al., Civ. No. 15-541-LPS (D. Del.);
Roy Day v. 21st Century Centennial Insurance
Company, Civ. No. 12-1096-LPS (D. Del); and Day v.
21st Century Centennial Insurance Company,
Civ. No. 8:13-2048-T-36AEP (M.D. Fla.).
Court's decision does not leave Mr. Day without a right
or a remedy. Mr. Day can bring his suit-here, in the Delaware
District Court or in the Florida District Court-if he follows
the instructions provided to him by Chief District Court
Judge Stark: when filing the action, provide proof and
documentation that Mr. Day paid the monetary sanctions
imposed upon him pursuant to In re Day, Case No.
95-mc-143 (M.D. Fla.). The Court cannot, however, let this
civil action proceed here when ...