Opinion
C.A. No. 05C-01-029 WLW.
Submitted: November 28, 2005.
Decided: December 9, 2005.
Upon Defendant's Motion for Summary. Judgment. Granted.
Julius Paoli and Christine Paoli, pro se Plaintiffs.
Michael J. Malkiewicz, Esquire of Barros McNamara Malkiewicz Taylor, P.A., Dover, Delaware; attorneys for Defendant.
ORDER
Defendant, Sun Communities, d/b/a Sea Air Village, filed a motion to dismiss premised on the theory of res judicata. Defendant provides that the Sussex County Court of Common Pleas dismissed this action based on res judicata since Plaintiffs' claim had already been raised and dismissed by the Sussex County Superior Court for lack of a definite statement. Defendant contends that: (1) this Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to the prior lawsuit; (2) the parties in the original action are the same as those in the present case; (3) the original cause of action involved the same issues as the case at bar; (4) the issues in the prior action were decided adversely to Plaintiffs; and (5) the decree in the prior action was a final decree. Thus, Defendant asserts that all the requirements for res judicata have been met.
Defendant titled its motion as a Motion to Dismiss; however, because documents outside the pleadings were considered, this motion will be treated as and referred to as a Motion for Summary Judgment. See Kenneth v. Stewart, 2002 Del. Super. LEXIS 202.
See Ingram v. 1101 Stone Assocs. LLC, 2004 Del. Super. LEXIS 77, at *23-25.
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.
Standard of Review
Superior Court Civil Rule 56(c) provides that judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." On a motion for summary judgment the Court examines the record to determine whether any material issues of fact exist. Summary judgment will only be granted when, after viewing the record in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment will not be granted when a more thorough inquiry into the facts is desirable to clarify the application of the law to the circumstances.Discussion
In Ingram, this Court opined, "Res Judicata is an absolute bar to a second suit in a different court on the same matter by the same parties. The second suit need not be on the identical cause of action. Issues of fact that are raised by the pleadings which are essential to the second action fall under res judicata." As mentioned above, Ingram also outlined the five-part test for res judicata: (1) the original court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (2) the parties to the original action must be the same as those parties, or in privity, in the case at bar; (3) the original cause of action or the issues decided must be the same as the case at bar; (4) the issues in the prior action must have been decided adversely to the Plaintiff in the case at bar; and (5) the decree in the prior action was a final decree. Further, the Court mentioned that the involuntary dismissal of an action by any court order operates as an adjudication on the merits.In the case sub judice, this Court finds that the requirements of res judicata have been met. The Sussex County Superior Court, the Sussex County Court of Common Pleas, and the Kent County Superior Court all had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. The parties in this action are the same as those in the original action. Even though John McDermott is no longer named as a plaintiff, both Julius Paoli and Christina Paoli are both plaintiffs in this action, just as they were in the original action. The cause of action in this case is the same as in the original case. The Sussex County Superior Court dismissed the original case because Plaintiffs failed to file a more definite statement, which clearly is adverse to Plaintiffs. Finally, the dismissal for lack of a definite statement was a final decree because, as noted in Ingram, any involuntary dismissal of an action by an order of the court operates as an adjudication on the merits. In addition, although the Plaintiffs' allegations may differ on non-substantial facts, the issues are the same as previously adjudicated.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.