Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reynolds v. Mitchell

Superior Court of Delaware

December 19, 2017

JULIE REYNOLDS, Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY JOSEPH MITCHELL, Defendant.

          Submitted: November 17, 2017

         Upon Defendant's Motion to Dismiss GRANTED.

          ORDER

          Andrea L. Rocanelli Judge.

         Upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Anthony Joseph Mitchell ("Defendant"); the facts, arguments, and legal authorities set forth by the parties; the Superior Court Civil Rules; statutory and decisional precedent; and the entire record in this case, the Court hereby finds as follows:

         1. On December 27, 2016, Plaintiff Julie Reynolds ("Plaintiff") brought this action against Defendant alleging that she suffered personal injuries as a result of an automobile accident caused by Defendant. Plaintiff is self-represented.

         2. On March 7, 2017, Defendant filed Interrogatories and a Request for Production directed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not provide any discovery responses.

          3. On April 7, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Rule 3(h) Production and Executed Medical and Employment Authorizations. The Motion to Compel was scheduled to be heard by the Court on May 9, 2017 and Plaintiff was given notice to appear. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant's Motion to Compel and did not appear in court. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Compel.

         4. Plaintiff did not provide Rule 3(h) documentation or execute employment and medical authorizations pursuant to the Court's May 9, 2017 Order.

         5. On June 29, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion for Rule to Show Cause for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the May 9, 2017 Order. Defendant also filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Answers to Discovery for Plaintiff's failure to provide discovery responses.

         6. The Court heard oral argument on Defendant's Motion for Rule to Show Cause and Defendant's Motion to Compel discovery responses on July 18, 2017. Plaintiff did not respond to either motion and, despite having notice to appear, did not appear in court. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant's motions and gave Plaintiff twenty days to produce discovery.

         7. Defendant sent the Court's July 18, 2017 Orders to Plaintiff via certified mail on July 19, 2017. On August 16, 2017, the Court's Orders were returned unclaimed to Defendant's counsel.

         8. On August 29, 2017, Defense Counsel received a message from Plaintiff's mother requesting that all correspondence to Plaintiff be re-sent to a different address. Defense Counsel complied with this request. However, despite Defense Counsel's efforts to correspond with Plaintiff, Plaintiff has not responded to any of the discovery requests or correspondence.

         9. In addition, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's May 9, 2017 Order or its July 18, 2017 Orders. Plaintiff also failed to comply with the Court's scheduling order dated April 19, 2017, which required Plaintiff to identify experts and file expert reports by September 29, 2017.

         10. Thus, the record demonstrates that Plaintiff has not participated in this ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.