G. FEDALE GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC, D/B/A, G. FEDALE ROOFING AND SIDING CONTRACTORS, Plaintiffs
ARTHUR SCOTT PRELLE, AMERICAN HOLLY, LLC, NIAZ A. MALIK, AND WELLS FARGO BANK, NA. Defendants.
Submitted: April 20, 2018
T. Lees III, Esquire One Corporate Commons Attorney for
Geoffrey G. Grivner, Esquire Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney,
P.C Attorney for Defendant Wells Fargo
Scott Prelle Pro Se Defendant
A. Malik Pro Se Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
J. Smalls Chief Judge
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
matter is back before the Court on G. Fedale Roofing and
Siding Contractors ("Plaintiff) motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings pursuant to Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule
12(c); Summary Judgment pursuant to Court of Common Pleas
Civil Rule 56; and Sanctions pursuant to Court of Common
Pleas Civil Rule 37, against Defendant Arthur Scott Prelle
("Prelle") for failure to comply with the
Court's several orders directing responses to discovery
facts that give rise to these proceedings indicate that
Plaintiff contracted with Prelle and American Holly, LLC.
("American Holly") to install a roof and make
certain repairs on the property located at 149 Honeywell
Drive in Claymont, Delaware. Plaintiff was unaware that
during the contract negotiations, Defendant Wells Fargo
("Wells Fargo") had initiated foreclosure
proceedings and ultimately foreclosed on the property, which
was sold at sheriffs sale. Plaintiff continued working on the
property after the new owner, Defendant Niaz A. Malik
("Malik") purchased the property at sheriffs sale.
On September 3, 2015, Plaintiff submitted an invoice to
Prelle and American Holly following the completion of the
work. Prelle and American Holly failed to pay the agreed
contractual amount of $15, 483.00.
3, 2016, Plaintiff initiated this action for breach of
contract, Quantum Meruit, and Fraud against Defendants
Prelle, American Holly, Malik, and Wells Fargo (collectively
"Defendants"). Plaintiff seeks judgment in the
amount of $15, 483.00, interest, attorney's fees, and
June 9, 2015, during the period when the property was owned
by Prelle and American Holly, the property was insured
through Donegal Insurance Group ("Donegal"). The
property was subsequently sold at sheriffs sale to Malik.
During foreclosure proceedings, Plaintiff alleges Prelle
filed a claim with Donegal and insurance proceeds were paid
to Prelle and American Holly. Plaintiff avers the payments
received from the insurer of the property were intended to
pay for the work performed by Plaintiff. Prelle endorsed,
deposited, and negotiated the checks from the insurer but
failed to pay for the services performed under the contract.
28, 2016, Malik filed an Answer denying any knowledge of
Plaintiff and/or the contract to repair the roof. On August
4, 2016, Wells Fargo filed an Answer and Cross-claim. Wells
Fargo denied the substantive allegations, claiming it
foreclosed Prelle's property in accordance with Delaware
law, and otherwise acted reasonably. On its cross-claim,
Wells Fargo seek contribution and indemnification from
American Holly in the event it is found liable.
January 26, 2017, Prelle filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Personal Jurisdiction, which was denied. On February 17,
2017, Malik filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing he was never a
party to the original contract between Prelle and Plaintiff.
Malik maintains he purchased the house "as is" at a
sheriff sale. Furthermore, Malik contends he purchased the
house after the roof was installed, and never saw anybody
working on the roof. Malik argued he is a blameless third
party, and moves the Court dismiss him as a party Defendant.
February 28, 2017, Prelle filed an Answer on behalf of
American Holly and himself, denying all substantive
allegations. Prelle's Answer states that ARTHUR SCOTT
PRELLE, a.k.a Arthur S Prelle, is a fictitious name, duly
registered with a registration of trade, business, and
fictitious name that is publicly recorded with the
prothonotary of the Superior Court. Prelle also raised a
number of affirmative defenses.
March 3, 2017, the Court held a hearing on Malik's Motion
to Dismiss. During the hearing, counsel for Plaintiff stated
that Prelle filed a motion to move the proceeding to the
Federal District Court for Delaware. As a result, this Court
issued an order staying this matter until May 19, 2017. On
April 13, 2017, the District Court issued an order remanding
the case back to this Court holding that the Federal Court
lack subject matter jurisdiction.
17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike the Answer of
American Holly on the basis that the answer was filed by
Prelle, who is not a licensed attorney, and as such may not
represent an artificial business entity.
28, 2017, Prelle filed a response on behalf of American Holly
and himself, claiming "all persons who are capable of
acting for themselves, and even those who are disqualified
from acting in their own capacity, infants of a proper age
and femes converts, may act as attorneys of others."
on June 28, 2017, American Holly, through Prelle, filed a
response opposing Plaintiffs Motion to Strike and a Motion to
Intervene on behalf of American Holly. In support of its
motion, Prelle claimed that this action is a representative
suit against American Holly and because Prelle has a
financial equitable interest in said action, he should be
able to intervene on behalf of American Holly. Prelle further
argues that American Holly is too impoverished to hire an
attorney. Prelle attached a notarized Power of Attorney for
American Holly appointing Prelle to act as its agent.
on June 28, 2017, Prelle filed a Motion to Compel, alleging
he has not been served with any of Malik's documents
filed with the Court. Prelle sought to compel the production
of these documents and reasonable attorney's fees.
Prelle filed several other motions labeled Objection to
Misjoinder and Non-Joinder of Parties, arguing that AMERICAN
HOLLY, LLC does not exist as an entity, and that AMERICAN
HOLLY LLC was not joined as a proper party. Prelle argues
that serving the Secretary of the State of Delaware is not
proper service for AMERICAN HOLLY LLC. Prelle moves for leave
to remove the non-existent "AMERICAN HOLLY, LLC"
and join "AMERICAN HOLLY LLC." Further, Prelle
seeks to join the C.E.O. of the State of Delaware, claiming
he is the agent or principal for AMERICAN HOLLY LLC. Prelle
also seeks to join the insurance company identified in the
Complaint and the Secretary of State for the United States of
on June 28, 2017, Prelle filed a Motion to Dismiss for
Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Prelle challenges the lawful definition of the
"$" symbol. Prelle argues Plaintiff cannot
establish what the "$" symbol represents under the
constitution, and therefore did not specify any damage or
lawful money owed. Furthermore, Prelle, for the second time
alleges that this court lacks jurisdiction over the
artificial entity ARTHUR SCOTT PRELLE,' and the proper
party is actually 'Arthur Scott Prelle.' Prelle
claims ARTHUR SCOTT PRELLE' is "a private trust
owned by the United States to which 'Arthur Scott
Prelle' possesses good title certified and guaranteed by
the U.S. Department of State. Prelle argues the Court has no
jurisdiction over the property of U.S. government, i.e.
'ARTHUR SCOTT PRELLE'.
September 1, 2017, the Court denied Malik's Motion to
dismiss him as a party and set a new date to address the
other motions. On September 15, 2017, Prelle filed a Motion
to Dismiss alleging prosecutorial misconduct which was
immediately denied. On October 17, 2017, following a hearing,
the Court ordered as follows:
1) As to Prelle's Motion to Continue, the motion is MOOT;
2) As to Prelle's Motion to Compel, the motion is
GRANTED. Malik is to provide copies of his Answer and the
Motion to Dismiss to Prelle;
3) As to Prelle's Motion for Misjoinder of American
Holly, LLC, the motion is DENIED. In Delaware, artificial
entities are required to be represented by an attorney and
Prelle is not an attorney admitted to the Delaware Bar.
Further, the comma in American Holly, LLC. does not raise a
legal issue sufficient to support the motion;
4) As to Prelle's Motion for Nonjoinder, the motion is
DENIED. Prelle's motion to join the "CEO of the
State of Delaware," failed to identify such actual
person exist. In addition, there is no basis to join the
Insurance Company identified in the complaint in order to
show they provided two checks to Prelle since this is not an
issue in this case. Furthermore, Prelle failed to provide a
valid reason ...