Augustus Evans, Jr. v. Bayer Corporation

• Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware
• Decided: July 29, 2014
• Docket: CM 05468-N(UASSIGNED)
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE SAM Gl_.;\sscrc')c?t< 111 STATE OF DELAWARE COUR'T oF CHANCL-:F

Vlc‘i=; C\i/\Nc‘,ln,.lc.olt 34 T:-lt~‘. Clncf:c.ti Gi~‘.olaolalrown, DF.LAw/xlz:': 19947

Date Subrnitted: J`uly 25, 2014 Date Decided: Ju1y 29, 2014

Augustus Hebrew Evans, Jr. JTVCC 1181 Paddock Road Smyrna, Delaware 19977 Re: Augtts.tzzs Evans, Jr. v. Bayer Corp.

Augusrz

C.M. No. 05468-1\1` Dear Mr. Evans:

Before me are Motions to Proceed fn Forma Pauperis filed by Augustus Hebrew Evans, Jr. in two actions which Mr. Evans seeks to bring in Chancery- one against Bayer Corp. and the other against Johnson & johnson Co. l\/Ir. Evans alleges in his Complaints that he has been injured by pharmaceutical products manufactured and sold by the defendants. He seeks damages under contract and tort theories Mr. Evans is incarcerated by the State of Delaware, and seeks to proceed in farina paz.tperz`s. Regardless of whether a plaintiff is otherwise a person

to whom in_forma pattperis status would be granted, this Coult will not g1'ant such

a motion where the underlying action fails to state a claini, under the rubric that

equity will not accomplish a futile act.l After a review of both the Comp1aint against Bayer Corp. and the Complaint against johnson & johnson Co., it is clear that l\/lr. Evans cannot establish jurisdiction in this Court. Therefore, the l\/lotions to Proceed 1a Foriria Paiiperis are DENIED. Of course, that denial is not conclusive with respect to l\/Ir. Evans’ prerogative to bring these actions in a court of law.

Chancery is a court of limited jurisdiction A plaintiff may bring a matter in Chancery only where it involves equitable subject matter, seeks an equitable remedy or where jurisdiction is provided by statute.z ln the "supplemental information" that Mr. Evans filed with his Complaints pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 3(a),3 he states that this Court has jurisdiction under Superior Court Civil Rule 8; 6 Del. C. §§ 2~314, 2-316(2) and 2-318; and 10 Del. C. § 1902. Superior Court Civil Rule 8 refers to the general rules of pleadings in that court.‘l The sections on which l\/l`r. Evans relies in Tit1e 6 are UCC sections involving

warranties.$ Finally, 10 Del. C. § 1902 is a statute which preserves the viability of

l Abcz’ul-Afcbar v. Delaware Dep ’t ofCorr., 1994 WL 469189, at *l (Del. Ch. Aug. il, 1994).

2 10 1)@.!_ C. § 342.

3 See Ct. Ch. R. 3(a)(2) ("Each complaint, when accepted for filing by the Register in Chancery, shall be accompanied by a covering sheet in the form adopted by the Court and containing information which the Court shall determine is necessary and appropriate.").

4 See generally Super. Ct. Civ. R. 8.

5 See 6 Del. C. § 2-314 (iinplied warranty of inerchantability); 6 Del. C, § 2-316(2) (exclusion of inodification of warranties); 6 Del. C. § 318 (third party beneficiaries of Warranties).

litigation brought wrongly in a court without jurisdiction.(’ None of these sections confer jurisdiction on this Court to hear the matters l\/lr. Evans seeks to place before it.

Mindful of Mr. Evans’ pro se status, 1 have reviewed his two voluminous Complaints closely. Without reciting each cause of action contained in these Complaints, it should suffice to say that each sounds in tort or contract; in other words, no equitable claim is presented ln addition, each seeks damages, including punitive damages unavailable in this Court. l\lo equitable remedy is sought in the Compiaints. Finally, in the supplemental information filed with each Complaint, the following question and answer appear:

8. lf the complaint seeks preliminary equitable relief, state the

specific preliminary relief sought.

l. Medical examination by speciaiist. 2. Mentai examination by specialist. 3. Expedited discovery 4. Appointment of counsei.7 l\/lr. Evans would not be entitled to appointment of counsel in this Court.

Expedition is available in equity and at law. Finally, the request for medical and

mentai examinations appears to be designed to gather evidence in connection with

° See i0 Del. C. § 1902 ("No civil action, suit or other proceeding brought in any court of this State shall be disinissed solely on the ground that such court is without jurisdiction ofthe subject matter, either in the original proceeding or on appeal Such proceeding may be transferred to an appropriate court for hearing and determination, provided that the party otherwise adversely affected, within 60 days after the order denying the jurisdiction of the first court has become f`mal, files in that court a written election of transfer, discharges all costs accrued in the first court, and makes the usual deposit for costs in the second court.").

7 Supp. lnfo.1[ 8.

his legal claims against the two defendants. They are not separate claims for equitable relief. Expert discovery is available at law as well as in equity.g To the extent that it was l\/lr. Evans’ intent to seek equitable relief in aid of discovery, no party to whom such an equitable order could be addressed is before the Court: neither Bayer Corp. nor Johnson & Johnson Co. has any control over Mr. Evans’ access to experts

Since Mr. Evans’ claims neither seek equitable relief nor involve equitable subject matter, and because the statutory bases recited by Mr. Evans do not support equitable jurisdiction, 1 conclude that this Court is without jurisdiction to hear these cases. Therefore, permitting Mr. Evans to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court would be futile, and his Motions to so proceed are DBNIED. To the extent the foregoing requires an order to take effect, lT lS SO ORDERED.

Sincerely, /s/ Sam Glasscoclc 111

Sam Glasscock ]ll

3 sea @.g., super ct civ R. 26(1»).