Submitted: December 7, 2018
Plaintiffs' Application for Appointment of Attorney Under
Provisions of 6 Del C. § 4613(b). Denied.
Mazen Shahin and Nina Shahin, pro se, of Dover, Delaware.
William W. Pepper, Sr., Esquire of Schmittinger &
Rodriguez, P.A., Dover, Delaware; attorney for Defendants.
William L. Witham. Jr. Resident Judge
Court has Plaintiffs Mazen and Nina Shahin's
("Plaintiffs") application for Appointment of
Attorney pursuant to 6 Del. C. § 4613(b) and
the City of Dover and Cheryl A. Bundek's
("Defendants") response. The Court of Chancery
previously considered the Plaintiffs' application, denied
it, and thereafter transferred the matter to the Superior
Court on October 16, 2018.
After considering the record in its entirety,  including the
Court of Chancery's previous ruling in regard to this
matter,  this Court DENIES the Plaintiffs'
application for appointment of attorney pursuant to section
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs filed their current complaint in the Court of
Chancery pro seon May 17, 2018, alleging the
Defendants' "systematic national origin
discrimination" against them in regard to the tax
assessments on their residence in Dover,
Simultaneous to filing their complaint, the Plaintiffs also
filed a petition asking the Chancery Court to "appoint
an attorney to file a formal [c]omplaint on their behalf
pursuant sections 6 Del C. § 4613(a) and (b) of
the Delaware Fair Housing Act.
September 26, 2018, the Court of Chancery denied the petition
and subsequently granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
transfer to this Court on October 16, 2018.
Plaintiffs' assert their unwillingness to continue/?ro
se due to "negative experience[s]" in
Delaware courts as pro se litigants. And, despite
their apparent willingness to pay for legal services, the
Plaintiffs claim that all efforts over the period of time
covering 2017 - 2018 to retain legal counsel, are
Defendants counter that the Plaintiffs have no absolute right
to the appointment of legal counsel by the Court in civil
cases, especially in light of the fact that the Plaintiffs
are not indigent. In support, the Defendants cite, Hicks
v. Makaha Valley Plantation Homeowners Ass '«,
Federal District case out of Hawaii, as persuasive guidance
for the Court to consider in the present matter.