Deluca v. Hyatt Corporation

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: February 6, 2019
• Docket: N17C-06-209 ALR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SHARON DELUCA and ) DONALD DELUCA, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No.: N17C-06-209 ALR ) HYATT CORPORATION; ) HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION; ) HYATT ARUBA N.V.; and ) ARUBA BEACHFRONT RESORTS ) LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ) ) Defendants. )

Submitted: January 11, 2019 Decided: February 6, 2019

Upon Defendants’ Hyatt Corporation and Hyatt Hotels Corporation Motion for Summary Judgment DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

ORDER

This is a personal injury case alleging a trip and fall incident. Upon

consideration of the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Hyatt

Corporation and Hyatt Hotels Corporation (“Moving Defendants”); the opposition

thereto filed by Plaintiffs Sharon DeLuca and Donald DeLuca (“Plaintiffs”); the

facts, arguments, and legal authorities set forth by the parties; the Superior Court

Civil Rules; statutory and decisional law; and the entire record in this case, the Court

hereby finds as follows: 1. On June 17, 2017, Plaintiffs initiated this negligence action against

Moving Defendants, seeking to recover damages for injuries arising from a trip and

fall incident that allegedly occurred on December 8, 2015, at the Hyatt Regency

Aruba Resort Spa and Casino in Palm Beach, Aruba (“Resort”). With leave of the

Court and no opposition by Moving Defendants, Plaintiffs filed an Amended

Complaint on December 18, 2018, adding Hyatt Aruba N.V. and Aruba Beachfront

Resorts Limited Partnership as additional defendants.

2. Plaintiffs allege that Sharon DeLuca suffered significant injuries which

required surgery when she tripped and fell as a result of a dangerous defect at the

Resort. Plaintiffs are seeking damages for personal injuries, pain and suffering,

medical expenses, lost wages and loss of consortium.

3. On December 13, 2018, Moving Defendants filed the Motion for

Summary Judgment that is currently before the Court. Moving Defendants argue

that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that Moving

Defendants are parent companies that cannot be held liable for the acts or negligence

of their subsidiaries.

4. On January 11, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the

Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that the motion is premature as the

record is incomplete and discovery is ongoing, especially with respect to the parent

and subsidiary relationships.

2 5. Summary judgment may be granted only where the moving party can

“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.”1 The moving party bears the initial

burden of proof and, once that is met, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to

show that a material issue of fact exists.2 At the motion for summary judgment

phase, the Court must view the facts “in the light most favorable to the non-moving

party.”3 Summary judgment is only appropriate if Plaintiffs’ claims lack evidentiary

support such that no reasonable jury could find in their favor.4 Summary judgment

will not be granted if the record indicates that there is a material fact in dispute, or if

further inquiry into the facts would be appropriate in order to clarify the application

of the law to the circumstances.5

6. The Court is not satisfied at this early stage that Moving Defendants are

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. An unresolved issue of material fact remains

as to Moving Defendants’ relationships to the other parties named as defendants in

this matter.

1 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56. 2 Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680-81 (Del. 1979). 3 Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355, 1364 (Del. 1995). 4 Hecksher v. Fairwinds Baptist Church, Inc., 115 A.3d 1187, 1200–05 (Del. 2015); Edmisten v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2012 WL 3264925, at *2 (Del. Aug. 13, 2012). 5 Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 470 (Del. 1962); Bracken-Bova v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2011 WL 5316600, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 7, 2011).

3 NOW, THEREFORE, this 6th day of February, 2019, the Motion for

Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Hyatt Corporation and Hyatt Hotels

Corporation is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Andrea L. Rocanelli ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ____

The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli