"Outside of these exceptions, the statute of limitations continues to run even if the claimant is unaware of the facts supporting a cause of action."Wal-Mart, 860 A.2d at 319 (citing Coleman v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, 854 A.2d 838, 842-43 (Del. 2004); Layton v. Allen, 246 A.2d 794 (Del. 1968)).Wal-Mart, 860 A.2d at 319 (quoting Coleman, 854 A.2d at 842).

Ch. Dec. 1, 2009) (same for unjust enrichment). Coleman v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, 854 A.2d 838, 842 (Del. 2004). Id. (citing Isaacson, Stolper & Co. v. Artisans' Sav. Bank, 330 A.2d 130, 132-33 (Del. 1974)).

1SN Software Corp. v. Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., 226 A.3d 727, 732 (Del. 2020); see also Nat'l Iranian Oil Co. v. Mapco Int'l Inc., 983 F.2d 485, 493 (3d Cir. 1992) (observing that a statute of limitations also protects the court by relieving it of the burden of adjudicating a stale claim where a plaintiff has delayed asserting his rights). Coleman v. Pricewater house Coopers, LLC, 854 A.2d 838, 842 (Del. 2004). Mastellone v. Argo Oil Corp., 82 A.2d 379, 383 (Del. 1951).

Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c); Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56, 59 (Del. 1991). Coleman v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLC, 854 A.2d 838, 842 (Del. 2004). Machulski v. Boudart, 2007 WL 315357, *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 31, 2007) (denying summary judgment on the basis that a factual dispute precluded a conclusion that the attorney's alleged malpractice was inherently unknowable until a later time) (citing Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 470 (Del. 1962)).

Isaacson, Stolper & Co. v. Artisans' Sav. Bank, 330 A.2d 130, 133–34 (Del.1974). The discovery rule in Delaware provides that the statute of limitations period is tolled while “the injury is inherently unknowable” and “the claimant is blamelessly ignorant of the wrongful act and the injury complained of.” Coleman v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, 854 A.2d 838, 842 (Del.2004). Even if an injury is inherently unknowable, the discovery rule does not toll the limitations period unless the claimant is blamelessly ignorant.

Intermec IP Corp., 2021 WL 3620435, at *21 (citation omitted). Coleman v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLC, 854 A.2d 838, 842 (Del. 2004) (citation omitted). Rite Aid, as the movant, must prove the evidence supports the conclusion that the limitations period has lapsed.

Id.Id. (quoting Coleman v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, 854 A.2d 838, 842 (Del. 2004)).

tolling is not at issue here, except possibly as to Count I, where it could be argued that the statute began to run upon the discovery of facts "constituting the basis of the cause of action or the existence of facts sufficient to put a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence on inquiry which, if pursued, would lead to the discovery" of such facts. Def.s' Supplemental Resp. at 5 (quoting Coleman v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLC, 854 A.2d 838, 842 (Del. 2004)) (emphasis added). However, at oral argument on October 18, 2017, Plaintiff conceded that tolling, in fact, did not apply to any of his claims.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 860 A.2d at 319.Id. (citing Coleman v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLC, 854 A.2d 838, 842 (Del. 2004)).Began v. Dixon, 547 A.2d 620, 623 (Del.Super.Ct. 1988).

Delaware law recognizes three tolling doctrines which operate to pause the statute of limitations' clock until a plaintiff discovers “facts constituting the basis of the cause of action or the existence of facts sufficient to put a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence on inquiry which, if pursued, would lead to the discovery of such facts.”Coleman v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, 854 A.2d 838, 842 (Del. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original)