See also Hughes ex rel. Hughes v. Christiana Sch. Dist., 2008 WL 2083150, at *2 (Del. May 19, 2008) ("In other words, Section 4001 provides immunity to discretionary acts committed in good faith, in the course of the performance of official duties and without gross or wanton negligence."). J.L. v. Barnes, 33 A.3d 902, 914 (Del. Super. 2011) (citing 10 Del. C. § 4001). See also Minner, 2013 WL 4538321, at *1 ("The plaintiff has the burden of proving the absence of one or more of the elements of immunity.").

May 19, 2008) ("In other words, Section 4001 provides immunity to discretionary acts committed in good faith, in the course of the performance of official duties and without gross or wanton negligence."). J.L. v. Barnes, 33 A.3d 902, 914 (Del. Super. 2001) (citing 10 Del. C. § 4001); Minner, 2013 WL 4538321, at *1. D. The Delaware Child Care Act.

Two principles drive the claim splitting doctrine: (1) "that no person should be unnecessarily harassed with a multiplicity of suits"; and (2) a litigant should be prohibited "from getting 'two bites at the apple.'"J.L. v. Barnes, 33 A.3d 902, 918 (Del. Super. 2011); see also Goureau v. Lemonis, 2021 WL 1197531, at *9 (Del. Ch. Mar. 30, 2021) (reasoning the claim splitting doctrine can apply to a series of related transactions). Claim splitting will not be applied where a plaintiff "could not for jurisdictional reasons have presented his claim in its entirety in a prior or parallel adjudication."

Super. Apr. 30, 2012) (citing J.L. v. Barnes, 33 A.3d 902, 913 (Del. Super. 2011)); Murphy v. Corr. Med. Servs. Inc., 2005 WL 2155226, at *3 (Del. Super.

(citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 806, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) ). J.L. v. Barnes , 33 A.3d 902, 915 (Del. Super. 2011) (citing Curley v. Klem , 298 F.3d 271, 277 (3d Cir. 2002) )

Ch. Apr. 10, 1995). J.L. v. Barnes, 33 A.3d 902, 918 (Del. Super. Ct. 2011) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting sources). Winner Acceptance Corp. v. Return on Cap. Corp., 2008 WL 5352063, at *18 (Del.

Pauley, 848 A.2d at 573.J.L. v. Barnes, 33 A.3d 902, 913 (Del. Super. 2011).Pauley, 848 A.2d at 573.

10 Del. C. § 4001. SeeJ.L. v. Barnes, 33 A.3d 902 (Del. Super. 2011) (public duty doctrine precluded Plaintiff's claims as they related to discretionary actions or omissions by individual employees of two state agencies who released a minor with an extensive history of violent behavior to practice football at a high school where he subsequently raped and assaulted a female trainer); Higgins v. Walls, 901 A.2d 122 (Del. Super. 2005) (public duty doctrine did not apply where privately owned commercial entity was contracted by the State to provide hunting licenses to the public for a fee); Castellani v. Delaware State Police, 751 A.2d 934 (Del.

When the defense of sovereign immunity is raised, the court must first determine whether there has been a waiver of sovereign immunity under 18 Del. C. § 6511 or some other statute. If there has been no waiver of sovereign immunity under that section or another statute, sovereign immunity exists and no further analysis is necessary. If it is determined that the state has waived sovereign immunity under 18 Del. C. § 6511 or another statute, then it is appropriate to next determine whether the limitation on civil liability set forth in the State Tort Claims Act bars the action.J.L. v. Barnes, 33 A.3d 902, 913 (Del. Super. 2011). Doe v. Cates, 499 A.2d 1175, 1180-81 (Del. 1985); see also Pauley v. Reinoehl, 848 A.2d 569, 573 (Del. 2004).

Id.Daugherty v. Dondero, 2023 WL 461112, at *3 (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting J.L. v. Barnes, 33 A.3d 902, 918 (Del. Super. June 17, 2011)). Importantly, "the rule against claim splitting is not limited to complaints that are word-for-word identical or present identical theories."