Chase Bank USA N.A. v. Edward Cherry

Filing 231

MEMORANDUM ORDER: denying 204 Motion to Strike ; granting in part and denying in part 213 Motion for Summary Judgment ; Hess' objections 227 are OVERRULED; Chase's objections 228 are GRANTED re 226 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 9/20/13. (ntl)

l
I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

I

I

l
l

CHASE BANK USA N.A.,
Plaintiff,
:Civil Action No. 08-121-LPS

v.
LAURA L. HESS, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
WHEREAS, Chief Magistrate Judge Thynge issued a Report and Recommendation (the
"Report") (D.I. 226), dated March 7, 2013, recommending Plaintiff Chase Bank USA N.A.'s
("Chase" or "Plaintiff') motion for summary judgment be granted with respect to Chase's claims
oftortious interference with contractual relations (Count I), abuse of process (Count III), and
conspiracy (Count VI);
WHEREAS, the Report further recommends that Chase's motion for summary judgment
be denied with respect to Chase's claims of unjust enrichment (Count II), violation of Delaware's
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Count IV), and Delaware's Consumer Fraud Act (Count V);
WHEREAS, the Report further recommends that certain injunctive relief be granted to
Chase, limited to those counts for which summary judgment is granted;
WHEREAS, the Report further recommends that certain declaratory relief also be granted
to Chase;
WHEREAS, the Report further recommends that Chase's motion to strike Defendant
Laura L. Hess' ("Hess" or "Defendant") answer (D.I. 204) be denied as moot, with leave to

J

l
1

1

~

I

I

I

renew if necessary;
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2013, Hess filed objections to the Report (D.I. 227), to which
Chase responded on April11, 2013 (D.I. 229);
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2013, Chase filed objections to the Report (D.I. 228), limited
to the recommended scope of the injunctive relief, to which Hess did not respond;
WHEREAS, the Court has considered the motion for summary judgment (D.I. 213) and
motion to strike the answer (D.I. 204) de novo, as they present case-dispositive issues, see 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and has further reviewed all ofthe pertinent filings;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Hess' objections (D.I. 227) are OVERRULED.

2.

Chase's objections (D.I. 228) are GRANTED.

3.

Chase's motion to strike (D.I. 204) is DENIED. The Report (D.I. 226 at 17-21)

details the lack of prejudice to Chase as well as the untimely nature, under the circumstances, of
the request to strike Hess' answer.
4.

Chase's motion for summary judgment (D.I. 213) is GRANTED IN PART,

specifically with respect to the claims of tortious interference with contractual relations, abuse of
process, and conspiracy (Counts I, III, and VI). The Court agrees with the Report that the record
contains sufficient evidence from which a reasonable finder of fact could find for Chase on each
of the essential elements of each of the foregoing claims. The Court further agrees that Hess has
failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of any material fact. The Court is unpersuaded by Hess'
contentions that it was error for the Report to consider the consent judgments and that the
consent judgments are the only evidence of record supporting Chase's claims. Additionally, the
Court concludes that even if the consent judgments are not considered admissions by Hess, they

nonetheless may constitute admissible, competent evidence that is appropriately considered on a
motion for summary judgment.
5.

Chase's motion for summary judgment (D.I. 213) is DENIED IN PART,

specifically with respect to the claims of unjust enrichment, violation of Delaware's Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, and Delaware's Consumer Fraud Act (Counts II, IV, and V), for the reasons
provided in the Report, with which the Court agrees. Chase has not objected to these portions of
the Report.
6.

The relief recommended by the Report (D.I. 226 at 21-22) is GRANTED, as are

the modifications ofthat relief requested by Chase (D.I. 228 at 4). The Court agrees with Chase
that the injunctive relief should include all ofthe Hess-related entities which Hess has previously
acknowledged controlling and/or owning and which were involved in the activities relating to the
claims on which judgment will be entered for Chase. The Court further agrees with Chase that
the modifications it proposes result in relief that appropriately correlates with the findings in the
Report, which are being adopted by the Court.
7.

No later than September 27, 2013, Chase shall submit a proposed form of order

consistent with the Court's rulings, including a recitation of all of the specific relief being
awarded by the Court.
8.

The parties shall meet and confer and, no later than October 4, 2013, Chase shall

submit, on behalf of all parties, a joint status report, addressing (in addition to anything else the
parties wish to address) whether further proceedings will be required in this action and, if so, on
what proposed schedule.

September 20, 2013
Wilmington, Delaware

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE