Affordable Autos Inc. v. Dietert

Full title: AFFORDABLE AUTOS INC., Plaintiff, v. IRVIN A. DIETERT, Defendant.

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

Date published: Dec 30, 2015

C.A. No. 15C-05-197 ALR (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 30, 2015)

Opinion

C.A. No. 15C-05-197 ALR

12-30-2015

AFFORDABLE AUTOS INC., Plaintiff, v. IRVIN A. DIETERT, Defendant.

Hon. Andrea L. Rocanelli

Upon Plaintiff's Motion in Limine for an Adverse Inference Due to Spoliation
DENIED

This matter involves claims for replevin and conversion arising from alleged damages sustained by Affordable Autos Inc. ("Plaintiff") when Plaintiff's former landlord, Irvin A. Dietert ("Defendant"), removed four vehicles from the leased premises. Plaintiff requests this Court find an adverse inference that is unfavorable to Defendant with respect to the value of the vehicles at the time of Defendant's alleged conversion because Defendant destroyed the evidence by disposing of the vehicles. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendant removed the vehicles from the leased premises, sold the vehicles to a third-party, and valuable parts were removed from the vehicles which reduced the value of the vehicles.

For the reasons stated in Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine, Plaintiff's Motion is hereby DENIED. Specifically, although Plaintiff relies on the Court of Common Pleas' holding in Stickney v. Goldstein with respect to the applicability of the doctrine of spoliation,¹ the facts in Stickney are significantly distinguishable from the present matter. Of most importance is that the defendants in Stickney intentionally failed to preserve any evidence.² In contrast in the case before this Court, Defendant or Defendant's agent took approximately thirty (30) photographs of the leased premises, which included depictions of the vehicles at issue and their components. Further, Plaintiff has not plead sufficient facts for this Court to make a necessary initial determination that Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly in failing to preserve evidence which is required for an adverse inference.³

1 See Stickney v. Goldstein, 2002 WL 31999358, at *12 (Del. Com. Pl. Mar. 14, 2002).

2 Id.

3 See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Midcap, 893 A.2d 542, 548 (Del. 2006) (finding that seller intentionally or recklessly destroyed a document was a predicate to issuance of an adverse inference instruction). --------

NOW, THEREFORE, this 30th day of December, 2015, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine for an adverse inference is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Andrea L . Rcoanelli

Hon. Andrea L. Rocanelli