ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS RICHARD M. LONGO AND
HILLCREST ASSOCIATES, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR A
MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
M. Davis, Judge
consideration of Defendants Richard M. Longo and Hillcrest
Associates, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss or for a More
Definite Statement (the "Motion") filed by
Defendants Richard M. Longo and Hillcrest Associates, Inc.
(collectively, "Defendants"); the Opposition to
Defendants Richard M. Longo and Hillcrest Associates,
Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss or for a More Definite Statement
(the "Opposition") filed by Plaintiffs Mark Fansler
and Linda Goldstein (collectively, "Plaintiffs");
the Amended Complaint; and the entire record of this civil
1. The Court has determined that no hearing is necessary on
the Motion and the Opposition.
2. Upon a motion to dismiss under Civil Rule 12(b)(6), the
Court (i) accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as
true, (ii) accepts even vague allegations as well-pleaded if
they give the opposing party notice of the claim, (iii) draws
all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party,
and (iv) only dismisses a case where the plaintiff would not
be entitled to recover under any reasonably conceivable set
of circumstances. However, the Court must "ignore
conclusory allegations that lack specific supporting factual
3. Rule 9(b) requires all allegations of negligence to be
pleaded with particularity.The underlying purpose of Rule
9(b) is to ensure that a party is notified of the "acts
or omissions by which it is alleged that a duty has been
violated in order to enable the preparation of a
defense." "To satisfy this purpose, 'it is
usually necessary to allege only sufficient facts out of
which a duty is implied and a general averment of failure to
discharge that duty.'"
5. To plead a cause of action for negligence, Plaintiffs must
allege sufficient facts to support the following elements:
(i) a duty; (ii) a breach of that duty; (iii) causal
connection between the breach and the injury sustained; and
(iv) actual loss or damages that result from the
4. From the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint, the
Court can discern that Plaintiffs are suing Defendants for
purported acts of professional negligence arising out of a
survey plan of a property (the "Property") located
at 1805 Walnut Street, Wilmington, Delaware
19809. In summary, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants negligently surveyed the Property and/or an
easement such that the Property remained landlocked despite
representations in the survey plan that the easement would
provide access. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants'
negligent conduct, along with the conduct of the other
defendants in this civil action, caused damages that total at
least $169, 187.74.
5. The Court finds and holds that Plaintiffs have alleged
sufficient facts to put Defendants on notice of the
negligence claim assert against them and prepare a defense.
The duty was to survey in accordance with applicable
Professional Regulations and care so that Plaintiffs would
have known that the Property did not have appropriate access
to Walnut Street. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached
that duty and that the breach is the proximate cause of
6. For the foregoing reasons, the Court
DENIES the Motion relating to Count II of
the Amended Complaint. Dated: August 14, 2018 Wilmington,
 See Central Mortg. Co. v. Morgan
Stanley Mortg. Capital Holdings LLC, 227 A.3d 531, 536
(Del. 2011); Doe v. Cedars Academy, No. 09C-09-136,
2010 WL 5825343, at *3 (Del. Super. Oct. 27, 2010).
 Ramunno v. Crawley, 705 A.2d
1029, 1034 (Del. 1998).
 Del. Super. Ct. R. 9(b); see also
Doe 30's Mother v. Bradley, 58 A.3d 429, 443 (Del.