US Bank National Association et al v. Gunn

Filing 174

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 150 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, 159 Motion to Dismiss, 164 and 171 Motions to Strike, 165 Motion to Disqualify, and 166 Motion for an Independent Inquiry and Rule to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 3/4/2014. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as
Trustee for the Holders of the EQCC Home
Equity Loan Asset Backed Certificates,
Series 1998-3 and SELECT PORTFOLIO
SERVICING, INC.,
Plaintiffs,

v.

Civ. No. 11-1155-RGA

LA MARGUNN,
Defendant.

Francis G. X. Pileggi, Dorothy Davis, and Jill Kornhauser Agro, Esquires; Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for Plaintiffs.
La Mar Gunn, Camden Wyoming, Delaware; Pro Se Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

t.

March
2014
Wilmington, Delaware

~fo~
Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (D. I. 97),
as well as Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (D. I. 150), motion to
dismiss (D.I. 159), motions to strike (D.I. 164, 171 ), motion to disqualify Plaintiffs'
counsel (D. I. 165), and motion for an independent inquiry and an order to show cause.
(D.I. 166). The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For the reasons
given below, the Court will deny Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, will strike
Defendant's cross motion for summary, judgment, hold the motion to dismiss in
abeyance, and will deny Defendant's motions to strike, motion to disqualify Plaintiffs'
counsel, and motion for an order to show cause.

I.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant La Mar Gunn unsuccessfully asserted ownership of property located

at 201 Cornwell Drive in Bear, Delaware in numerous court cases. 1 Gunn purchased

1

The Court takes judicial notice that Gunn has filed the following lawsuits
asserting ownership of the property: Gunn v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., C.A. No.
09C-04-102 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 13, 2009); Gunn v. U.S. Bank, C.A. 5917-MG (Del.
Ch. Aug. 18, 2011); Gunn v. AmbacAssurance Corp., C.A. No. N11C-11-128 FSS (Del.
Super. Ct. Mar. 21, 2012); Gunn v. AmbacAssurance Corp., Civ. No. 11-05497
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2012); United States Bank Ass'n v. Johnson, C.A. No. 02L-07-075
FSS (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 21, 2012). In addition, Gunn filed a lawsuit against Wells
Fargo & Company to rescind the first mortgage on the property in the Court of Common
Pleas for the State of Delaware, C.A. No. CPU4-1 O-C000145, removed to this Court,
Gunn v. Wells Fargo & Co., Civ. No. 10-066-SD (D. Del. July 13, 201 0), and dismissed.
Gunn also filed notices of lis pendens with the New Castle County Recorder of Deeds
stating that the foreclosure sale was illegal and that he is the record owner of the
property. Gunn filed an ethics complaint with the New Castle County Board of Realtors
claiming that Plaintiffs' agent was deceiving potential buyers and improperly marketing
the property when Gunn owned the property. Finally, Gunn filed a complaint against
the title insurers of the real property at issue which remains pending. Gunn v. First Am.
Fin. Corp., Civ. No. 13-174-RGA (D. Del.)

2

the property from its owners, Leisa and Robert Johnson, and it was the subject of a
foreclosure action in U.S. Bank v. Johnson, C.A. No. 02L-07-075 (Del. Super. Ct.). The
Superior Court of the State of Delaware found that Gunn "knew he was buying a
property with a first mortgage[, and that he] also had actual notice that the note and
mortgage were in serious default. U.S. Bank Nat'/ Ass'n v. Johnson, 2010 WL 705723,
at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 25, 2010), aff'd, Gunn v. U.S. Bank Nat'/ Ass'n, 998 A.2d 850
(Del. 201 0). "Knowing the loan was in default and in foreclosure, Gunn purchased [an
April 1998 mortgage on the property in issue] in November 2003. On December 16,
2003, Gunn purchased [the] property by quitclaim deed, which he recorded on March 4,
2004." /d. at *1. "On November 9, 2004, Gunn claimed ownership of the property and
filed a motion to stay the sheriffs sale [of the property]." /d. The property was sold at
the sheriff's sale on December 9, 2008 to Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association as
Trustee for the Holders of the EQCC Home Equity Loan Asset Backed Certificates,
Series 1998-3. (D. I. 1, ex. E.)
On November 12, 2010, the Superior Court of the State of Delaware granted
U.S. Bank a writ of possession of the property. (/d. at ex. G.) According to Plaintiffs,
the Sheriff of New Castle County executed the writ of possession on February 1, 2011,
and removed Gunn from the property. When U.S. Bank took possession of the
property, it discovered damage to the property that included the removal of the front
door, furnace, garbage disposal, dishwasher, refrigerator, washer and dryer, two
exterior doors, eight interior doors, two sets of double doors, the interior and exterior
HVAC units, seven interior ceiling light fixtures, two exterior light fixtures, molding

3

I

around the doors, and a stove hood in the kitchen and five broken sliding glass door
panels, four broken windows, two broken one-car garage doors, broken bathroom

I

I

fixtures, numerous large holes in the interior walls, damaged rugs, a disconnected
kitchen sink, as well as other miscellaneous damage.
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on November 21, 2011. Gunn answered and
raised counterclaims against Plaintiffs. All counterclaims having been dismissed. (0.1.
1, 5, 23, 39, 42.) On May 11, 2012, Plaintiffs sold the property at issue. (0.1. 99, ex. 1).

i

I
~

The case proceeds on the verified Complaint (0.1. 1), and it raises the following claims:
Count I, trespass to real estate; Count II, conversion; Count Ill, unjust enrichment;
Count IV, tortious interference with prospective business opportunities; Count V,
slander of title; and Count VI, abuse of process. Plaintiffs seek compensation for lost
rent, diminution in property value, and a permanent injunction to prevent future
interference. 2
On February 8, 2012, the Court entered a scheduling order (0.1. 24) that set a
February 22, 2012 deadline for the joinder of other parties and amendment of pleadings
(id.

at~

2), a discovery deadline of April 8, 2012 (id.

deadline of July 8, 2012, (/d.

at~

at~

3.a), and a dispositive motion

7). Plaintiffs timely filed their motion for summary

judgment. (0.1. 97). When the Court belatedly discovered that Gunn had not

2

0n March 16, 2012, the Court enjoined Gunn from contacting potential buyers
of the property, representing to potential buyers that he is the owner of the property,
and from posting notices of any kind on the property. (See 0.1. 39.) As noted, the
property was sold during the pendency of this action. Gunn did not appeal the Order,
although he has appealed a subsequent order finding him in contempt for violating the
March 16, 2012 Order in part. (See 0.1. 160.) The appeal was dismissed for lack of
appellate jurisdiction on September 10, 2013. See U.S. Bank Nat'/ Assoc. v. Gunn, No.
13-2310 (3d Cir. Sept. 10, 2013).

4

l

I

responded to the motion, it dismissed the motion without prejudice, deemed it refiled,
and set a briefing schedule for responses to the motion. (See D.l. 149.)
Gunn filed his opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment with a
combined cross-motion for summary judgment (D. I. 150) and, on May 2, 2013, Gunn
filed a motion to dismiss. (D.I. 159). Gunn did not seek leave to file the dispositive
motions, and they were filed well past the dispositive motion deadline of July 8, 2012.
Therefore, the cross-motion for summary judgment (D. I. 150) will be stricken and will
not be considered. 3 The motion to dismiss (D.I. 159), while also untimely, concerns in
part jurisdictional matters, and the Court believes it would be better to resolve the
motion on the merits, and therefore that motion will remain pending. The Court will
consider Gunn's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment that is contained
in the combined filing. (D.I. 150).

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56( a). A "material fact" is one that "could affect the
outcome" of the proceeding. See Lamont v. New Jersey, 637 F.3d 177, 181 (3d Cir.
2011 ). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
586 n.1 0 (1986). The court will "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the

3

They are also repetitive and substantively meritless.

5

I

I

nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence."
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).
If the moving party is able to demonstrate an absence of disputed material facts,
the nonmoving party then "must come forward with 'specific facts showing that there is
a genuine issue for trial."' Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986);
see a/so Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. The mere existence of some evidence in support
of the nonmoving party, however, will not be sufficient for denial of a motion for
summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Rather, the nonmoving party must
present enough evidence to enable a jury to reasonably find for it on that issue. /d. If
the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its
case with respect to which it has the burden of proof, the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

Ill.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT/RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on the grounds that there are no factual

disputes at issue. This is based upon their position that Gunn did not deny any of the
factual allegations in the Complaint and that he failed to timely answer or oppose
Plaintiffs' requests for admissions. Gunn opposes the motion (0.1. 150) on the grounds
that Plaintiffs lack standing and they failed to join several indispensable parties.
Gunn proceeds pro se. The Court finds that Gunn's global denial in his answer
(0.1. 5, 1f1) to the Complaint denies all allegations raised against him. In addition, the
Court exercises its discretion and considers Gunn's responses to the requests for
admissions. Plaintiffs served requests for admissions (0.1. 31) upon Gunn on February

6

22, 2012, and Gunn served his responses (D. I. 58) to the requests for admissions on
April 25, 2012. Assuming Gunn received the request for admissions in three days, his
responses were untimely by approximately one month. Plaintiffs contend that Gunn's
responses should not be considered because they were untimely, and Gunn did not
seek relief to excuse his delinquency.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3), a matter is admitted unless, within thirty
. days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the
requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by
the party. A shorter or longer time for response may be stipulated by the parties or
ordered by the court. /d. Although the language of Rule 36(a) seems to dictate a
harsher result, courts have recognized that the court may accept untimely answers.
See, e.g., Kosta v. Connolly, 709 F. Supp. 592, 594 (E.D. Pa.1989) ("We should not

employ ... [R]ule [36(a)] to establish facts which are obviously in dispute or to answer
questions of law."). Rule 36(b) provides that any matter deemed admitted under the
Rule is conclusively established unless the Court permits withdrawal or amendment of
the admission. Hence, the Court may, in its discretion, permit what would otherwise be
an untimely answer to a request for admissions. Coca-Co/a Bottling Co. of Shreveport,
Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 123 F.R.D. 97, 103 (D. Del. 1988). The Court should normally

permit untimely answers when doing so would aid in the presentation of the merits of
the action and would not prejudice the party who made the requests. Flohr v.
Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 821 F.Supp. 301, 306 (E.D. Pa. 1993).

7

The request for admissions was served upon Gunn in one document referred to
by Plaintiffs as the "First Set of Discovery upon Defendant, La Mar Gunn, pursuant to
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." (D.I. 31 ). That document also included Plaintiffs'
first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents. On April 18, 2012,
the Court extended the time for Gunn to respond to Plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories
and requests for production of documents to April 25, 2012 - the date that Gunn filed
his responses to the requests for admissions. Gunn's response to the request for
admissions, while late, was not excessive, and was filed within the extended time-frame
of other discovery sought by Plaintiffs. For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
were not prejudiced by the untimeliness of Gunn's responses to the request for
admissions and will permit Gunn's answers pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).
Gunn denies that: (1) in 2011, he caused to be filed the document entitled
"Public Notice"; (2) he was in possession of the property from the year 2005 through
February 1, 2011; (3) prior to vacating the property on February 1, 2011, he caused
and/or permitted others known to him to remove the front door, furnace, garbage
disposal, dishwasher, refrigerator and washer/dryer from the property; (4) he caused
and/or permitted others known to him to cause the removal of certain items and
damage to the property; and (5) the pictures attached to the Complaint (D.I. 1, ex. L)
accurately reflect the condition of the property at the time he vacated it on February 1,
2011.
Gunn objected to and neither denied nor admitted whether: (1) in 2011, he
caused to be displayed at the property a document entitled "Public Notice"; (2) in
November 2011, he caused to be sent to a representative of a prospective buyer of the

8

property a document entitled "Notice by Affidavit of Felony Crime"; and (3) he caused
copies of the documents attached to the Complaint (D.I. 1, ex. Q) to be sent to U.S.
Bank.

IV.

DISCUSSION
A.

Count I, Trespass

Plaintiffs contend that summary judgment is proper as to Count I because Gunn
had possession of the property without their permission for over two years, from
December 9, 2008 until February 1, 2011. Under Delaware law, an intentional trespass
occurs when three elements are proven: (1) the plaintiff has lawful possession of the
land; (2) the defendant has entered onto the plaintiffs land without consent or privilege;
and (3) the plaintiff shows damages. Cochran v. City of Wilmington, 77 A. 963 (Del.
Super. Ct. 1908).
The property was sold on December 9, 2008 to U.S. Bank National Association
as Trustee for the Holders of the EQCC Home Equity Loan Asset Backed Certificates,
Series 1998-3. (D. I. 1, ex. E.) On November 12, 2010, the Superior Court of the State
of Delaware granted U.S. Bank a writ of possession of the property. (/d. at ex. G.)
Plaintiffs state, but provide no evidence, that the Sheriff of New Castle County executed
the writ of possession on February 1, 2011, and removed Gunn from the property.
Gunn denies that he was in possession of the property from 2005 through February 1 ,
2011. Because disputes of fact exist with regard to Gunn's possession of the property,
the Court will deny summary judgment as to Count I.

9

B.

Count II, Conversion

Plaintiffs contend that summary judgment is proper on the conversion claim
because Gunn refused to leave the property until February 1, 2011. Count II alleges
that prior to the execution of the writ of possession Gunn, or others acting on his behalf,
removed and took the front door, furnace, refrigerator, dishwasher, garbage disposal,
washer and dryer and several light fixtures, thus unlawfully converting the fixtures and
appliances. Conversion typically results from "any distinct act of dominion wrongfully
exerted over the property of another, in denial of his right, or inconsistent with it. ... "
Drug, Inc. v. Hunt, 168 A. 87, 93 (Del. 1933). "It is well-settled in Delaware that
conversion applies to chattel but not to real property." Cornell Glasgow, LLC v.
LaGrange Properties, LLC, 2012 WL 3157124, at *5 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 1, 2012)
(citations omitted). "Chattel is '[m)ovable or transferable property; personal property;
esp., a physical object capable of manual delivery and not the subject matter of real
property."' /d.

"Real property is '[l]and and anything growing on, attached to, or erected

on it, excluding anything that may be severed without injury to the land."' /d. For
Plaintiffs to recover under a theory of conversion, they must prove precisely which
property Gunn converted and that their interest in the property was viable at the time of
the conversion. See CIT Commc'ns Fin. Corp. v. Leve/3 Commc'ns, LLC, 2008 WL
2586694 (Del. Super. Ct. June 6, 2008).
According to Plaintiffs, Gunn refused to leave the property until February 1,
2011, and during that time they were denied the use and possession of the property.
To the extent that Plaintiffs claim conversion of real property, said claim is not

10

I

actionable as a matter of law and must be dismissed. Plaintiffs additionally contend
that Gunn caused significant damage to the property. Gunn denies that he was in
possession of the property from 2005 through February 1, 2011 and denies that he
damaged the property, or that others known to him caused damage to the property.
Because disputes of fact exist as to the issue of conversion of Plaintiffs' chattel, the
Court will deny summary judgment as to Count II.

C.

Count Ill, Unjust Enrichment

Plaintiffs contend that summary judgment is proper because Gunn was unjustly

I
I
t

enriched at their expense. Unjust enrichment is a cause of action based on the "unjust
retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property of

t

I

I

another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity or good conscience."
Nemec v. Shrader, 991 A.2d 1120, 1130 (Del. 201 0). The elements of unjust

enrichment are "the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention
of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity
and good conscience." Schock v. Nash, 732 A.2d 217, 232 (Del. 1999). In determining
whether to award a remedy based on unjust enrichment, courts look for proof of the
following elements: (1) an enrichment; (2) an impoverishment; (3) a relation between
the enrichment and impoverishment; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) the
absence of a remedy provided by law. Fitzgerald v. Cantor, 1998 WL 326686, at *6
(Del. Ch. June 16, 1998).
According to Plaintiffs, Gunn improperly occupied the property from December 9,
2008, through February 1, 2011, without paying rent and precluding Plaintiffs' use,

11

I

I

thereby enriching Gunn and damaging Plaintiffs, and that during that time they were
denied the use and possession of the property. In addition, they contend that there was
no agreement that permitted Gunn to occupy the property and there was no justification
for Gunn to deprive Plaintiffs of its use and possession. They further contend that
Gunn's removal of the fixtures was without justification and caused them damage.
Finally, Plaintiffs contend they had no recourse under contract law as Gunn was holding
over unlawfully, and a remedy is not provided by law. Gunn denies that he was in
possession of the property from 2005 through February 1, 2011 and denies that he
removed fixtures from the property. Because there remain disputes of fact, the Court
will deny summary judgment as to Count Ill.

D.

Count IV, Tortious Interference with Prospective Business
Opportunities

Plaintiffs contend that summary judgment is proper as to Count IV for tortious
interference with prospective business opportunities because Gunn repeatedly
interfered with Plaintiffs' attempts to sell the property. To establish a tortious
interference with a prospective business opportunity claim, Plaintiffs must prove each of
the following elements: (1) the reasonable probability of a business opportunity; (2) the
intentional interference by defendant with that opportunity; (3) proximate causation; and
(4) damages, all of which must be considered in light of a defendant's privilege to
compete or protect his business interests in a fair and lawful manner. OeBonaventura
v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 428 A.2d 1151 , 1153 (Del. 1981) (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted).

12

I
t

To meet the reasonable probability of a business opportunity prong, a plaintiff
"must identify a specific party who was prepared to enter into a business relationship
but was dissuaded from doing so by the defendant and cannot rely on generalized
allegations of harm." Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Kirkland, 2009 WL 119865, at *7 (Del. Ch.
Jan. 20, 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Furthermore, "[t]o be
reasonably probable, a business opportunity must be something more than a mere
hope or the innate optimism of the salesman or a mere perception of a prospective
business relationship." /d. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
To meet the intentional interference prong, a plaintiff must prove that the
defendant's interference with a business opportunity was intentional and wrongful or
improper. Agilent Techs., 2009 WL 119865, at *8. The interferer must also have
"knowledge of the relationship or expectancy." In re Frederick's of Hollywood, Inc.,
1998 WL 398244, at *5 (Del. Ch. July 9, 1998), aff'd sub nom., Malpiede v. Townson,
780 A.2d 1075 (Del. 2001 ). When considering whether a defendant's actions were
improper, the Court must assess these actions "in light of a defendant's privilege to
compete or protect [his] business interests in a fair and lawful manner."
DeBonaventura, 428 A.2d at 1153 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Threatened or filed litigation can constitute improper interference "if the actor has no
belief in the merit of the litigation or if, though having some belief in its merit, he
nevertheless institutes or threatens to institute the litigation in bad faith, intending only
to harass the third parties and not to bring his claim to definitive adjudication." Soterion

13

Corp. v. Soteria Mezzanine Corp., 2012 WL 5378251, at *14 (Del. Ch. Oct. 31, 2012)

(citing Restatement (Second) of Torts§ 767 (1979)).
Plaintiffs argue that Gunn improperly maintained possession of the property from
December 9, 2008 through February 1, 2011, which prevented Plaintiffs from using,
renting, marketing, or selling the property. As previously noted, Gunn denies this. They
further argue that after February 1, 2011, Gunn continued to aggressively assert
ownership of the property, cloud the property's title, and assert allegations of fraud and
ethics violations against Plaintiffs, their counsel, and their agents to the extent that on
November 8, 2011, a potential buyer for the property advised that it would not proceed
with the closing of the sale of the property.
The November 8, 2011 letter from counsel for the potential buyer who advised
that they were no longer proceeding with the purchase of the property makes no
reference to Gunn but, rather, focuses on clearing title to the property. It is undisputed
that Gunn aggressively asserted title to the property. Nonetheless, based upon the
record before it, the Court has insufficient evidence to conclude that Gunn's litigious
efforts to claim ownership to the property were made in bad faith given his adamant,
albeit unsuccessful, assertions that the property belongs to him.
Because there remain disputes of fact, the Court will deny summary judgment as
to Count IV.
E.

Count V, Slander of Title

Plaintiffs contend that summary judgment is proper as to Count V for slander of
title because, despite court rulings that Gunn did not own the property, he asserted

14

ownership when he recorded and posted lis pendens notices on the property and
informed potential buyers of the same. The elements of a slander of title claim are:
(1) the malicious; (2) publication of; (3) false matter concerning the state of title of
property which; (4) causes special damages. Rudnitsky v. Rudnitsky, 2000 WL
1724234 (Del. Ch. Nov. 14, 2000).
Plaintiffs argue that Gunn repeatedly and improperly interfered with the sale of
the property by ignoring judicial determinations and falsely asserting legal ownership in
the property. One of the elements that must be proven for Plaintiffs to prevail is
whether Gunn acted maliciously. To be malicious, the acts of Defendant must have
been done with a wrongful or improper motive or with a wanton disregard of Plaintiffs'
rights. See Kayne v. Pantone, Inc., 395 A.2d 369, 372-73 (Del. Ch. 1978); Nix v.
Sawyer, 466 A.2d 407, 411-12 (Del. Super. Ct. 1983).
The Court is aware that it granted Plaintiffs injunctive relief, finding that there was
a reasonable probability they would succeed on their slander of title claim and further
finding that the record reflected that subsequent to Delaware Court rulings that U.S.
Bank, and not Gunn, is the owner of the Property, Gunn filed a notice of lis pendens,
affixed it to the property, and contacted potential buyers regarding his interpretation of
ownership of the property. (See D.l. 38, 39.)
It is well established that "a preliminary injunction is customarily granted on the
basis of procedures that are less formal and evidence that is less complete than in a
trial on the merits." University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981 ). As
the Third Circuit has acknowledged, many Circuits have recognized that "[a]ffidavits and

15

other hearsay materials are often received in preliminary injunction proceedings." Kos
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 718 (3d Cir. 2004) (listing cases).

Conversely, there are strict rules governing the form of affidavits that may be
considered in summary judgment proceedings. /d. ("Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 56( e)
(affidavits on summary judgment 'shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth
such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the
affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein') with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 (no
similar provision in rule governing preliminary injunctions)". Indeed, "consideration of
the different policies that underlie Rules 56 and 65 indicates that the Rule 56( e)
standard should not be imposed on applications under the latter rule." /d. (quotation
omitted).
Plaintiffs rely upon Gunn's answer to the Complaint which, as previously
discussed, is a global denial to the allegations as well as Gunn's responses the
requests for admissions that, except for objections, deny the requests. While findings
were made in favor of Plaintiffs at the injunctive relief stage, the more stringent
summary judgment standards preclude summary judgment on the slander of title issue.
Because there exist disputes of fact, the Court will deny summary judgment as to
Count V.

F.

Count VI, Abuse of Process

Plaintiffs contend that summary judgment is proper as to Count VI because
Gunn repeatedly and improperly interfered with the sale of the property by ignoring

16

judicial determinations and falsely asserting legal ownership in the property. The
requisites of an abuse of process claim under Delaware law are:
(1) an ulterior purpose; and (2) a wilful act in the use of the process not
proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings. * * * [S]ome definite act
or threat not authorized by the process, or aimed at an objective not
legitimate in the use of the process, is required. Merely carrying out the
process to its authorized conclusion, even though with bad intentions,
does not result in liability. Some form of coercion to obtain a collateral
advantage, not properly involved in the proceeding itself, must be shown.
Unit, Inc. v. Kentucky Fried Chicken Corp., 304 A.2d 320, 331 (Del. Super. Ct. 1973),
overruled on other grounds, Mann v. Oppenheimer & Co., 517 A.2d 1056 (Del. Super.

Ct. 1986).
The Court finds there are genuine issues of fact whether Gunn had an improper
motive in seeking title to the property. While Gunn appears to have been overzealous
in his efforts to keep property he believed he owned, the Court, nonetheless, must
construe the facts in the light most favorable to Gunn as the non-moving party. The
Court is not prepared to find that summary judgment as to Count VI is appropriate.
Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to Count VI.

G.

Affirmative Defenses

In his Answer (D. I. 5), Gunn asserts seven affirmative defenses: lack of standing,
intent to defraud, failure to join parties, retaliation, failure to comply with the pooling and
servicing agreement, termination of real estate mortgage investment conduit status, and
violation of the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct. Plaintiffs argue that
Gunn's affirmative defenses are barred under the doctrines of collateral estoppel and
res judicata, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, comity, are without merit, and do not

17

!
I'

prevent entry of summary judgment. As discussed above, the Court will deny Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment. The Court notes that other than "lack of standing," the
asserted defenses are not defenses at all to the claims raised. The Court, therefore,
will only address the standing issue.
Gunn argues that summary judgment is not proper because U.S. Bank National
Association as Trustee for the Holders of the EQCC Home Equity Loan Asset Backed
Certificates, Series 1998-3 lacks standing to proceed. The property at issue was sold
on December 9, 2008 to "U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for the Holders of
the EQCC Home Equity Loan Asset Backed Certificates, Series 1998-3,"- i.e., the
Plaintiff- as evidenced by the Sheriffs Deed (D.I. 1, ex. E.) filed at the Recorder of
Deeds in New Castle County, Delaware. 4 Gunn repeatedly raised the standing issue in
numerous cases in the Delaware courts. As the Delaware Supreme Court noted in its
May 26, 2011 decision, following the November 12, 2010 grant to the U.S. Bank for a
writ of possession, Gunn raised as one of his grounds on appeal that U.S. Bank did not
have standing. Gunn v. U.S. Bank Nat'/ Assoc., 23 A.3d 865, 2011 WL 2090203 (Del.
2011) (table). The Delaware Supreme Court noted that the same claim was
unsuccessfully raised by Gunn in Gunn v. U.S. Bank Nat'/ Assoc., No. 102, 2009 (Del.
June 30, 2010) and Gunn v. U.S. Bank Nat'/ Assoc., No. 102, 2009 (Dec. 1, 2009). See

Gunn, 2011 WL 2090203 at *1. The Delaware Supreme Court observed that "[t]he 'law
of the case' doctrine, which is well-established in Delaware law, bars re-litigation of any
claim that has been previously decided by the [Delaware Supreme] Court in the same

4

Th us, as the owner of the property at the time of the lawsuit, Plaintiffs
unquestionably had standing to bring this lawsuit.
18

proceeding. As such, the prior decisions of [the Delaware Supreme] Court regarding
any claim by Gunn became the 'law of the case' in all subsequent stages of the
litigation." /d. (footnotes omitted) The Delaware Supreme Court concluded that Gunn's
standing claims were barred by the "law of the case" doctrine. Gunn has repeatedly
raised the standing issue, to no avail.
As I understand what Gunn has raised at this time, there is the question of
constitutional standing, and there is a question as to compliance with Rule 17. As to
Plaintiff U.S. Bank as Trustee, etc., it was the owner of the property at the time of
Gunn's alleged wrongdoing, it suffered any damage, and it therefore has constitutional
standing. As to Selective Portfolio Servicing, Inc., it is the servicing agent and attorneyin-fact for U.S. Bank. Plaintiffs state that lack of standing has been "repeatedly rejected
by this Court." (D.I. 163 at 3). Three of six items cited in support are filings by the
Plaintiff, and the three items by the Court are not directed at SPS in particular. Thus, I
am not convinced that I have decided constitutional standing as to SPS already.
There is also a Rule 17 issue, which, as I understand it, involves not so much
"standing" as "capacity to be sue or be sued." On Rule 17, I am satisfied that Selective
Portfolio Servicing has such capacity. I am quite sure that I have not focused on this
issue in relation to U.S. Bank as Trustee, etc., where the issue does not concern U.S.
Bank as Trustee, but the EQCC Home Equity Loan Asset Backed Certificates, Series
1998-3.
I believe the best way to resolve this issue is to direct the Plaintiffs to file a letter
that addresses the Rule 17 capacity issue as it relates to U.S. Bank National
Association as Trustee for the Holders of the EQCC Home Equity Loan Asset Backed
19

Certificates, Series 1998-3, including which particular subsection of Rule 17 is
applicable, and, as to Selective Portfolio Servicing, how it has been injured. 5

V.

MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS
Defendant has filed two motions to strike (D.I. 164, 171 ); one to strike Plaintiffs'

opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss (D.I. 164), and the other to strike Plaintiffs'
opposition to Defendant's motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel. (D.I. 171 ). The Court
finds neither motion well-taken and they will be denied.
Defendant moves to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel. (D.I. 165). Defendant has
moved to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel in various courts raising the same or similar
grounds as in the instant motion. To date, each motion has been rejected. (See D.l.
169). Having considered the instant motion and Plaintiffs' response, the Court finds
that Defendant has failed to show that continued representation would be
impermissible. See Elonex J.P. Holdings, Ltd. v. Apple Computer, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d
579, 581 (D. Del. 2001 ). Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion to disqualify
Plaintiffs' counsel. (D.I. 165).
Finally, Defendant moves for an independent inquiry and rule to show cause
why attorney Dorothy Davis should not be disbarred based upon his numerous
allegations of her misconduct. (D.I. 166). Having reviewed the record, the Court finds
no indication that Davis has engaged in professional misconduct to warrant either an

5

The Court requests Plaintiffs file their letter by March 12, 2014, and that
Defendant file any responsive letter by March 19, 2014. No other submissions are
allowed. Plaintiffs should address the legal effect, if any, of the Certificates maturing, if
that is what has happened. If either party refers to items already in the record, the
items should be specifically identified by D.l. No., with a specific page reference.
20

independent inquiry or a show cause order. Therefore, the Court will deny the motion.

VI.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court will deny Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment (D.I. 97), will strike as untimely Defendant's cross-motion for
summary judgment (D.I. 150) and Defendant's motion to dismiss (D. I. 159), and will
deny Defendant's motions to strike (D.I. 164, 171 ), motion to disqualify Plaintiffs'
counsel (D.I. 165), and motion for an independent inquiry and an order to show cause.
(D.I. 166).
A separate Order, consistent with this Memorandum Opinion, will be entered.

21