Gwen Thornton v. Louise Lamborn

• Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware
• Decided: August 12, 2024
• Docket: C.A. No. 2022-0842-SEM
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KATHALEEN ST. J. MCCORMICK LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER CHANCELLOR 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734

August 12, 2024

Jason C. Powell John A. Sergovic, Jr. Thomas Reichert Sergovic Carmean Weidman McCartney The Powell Firm & Owens PA 1813 N. Franklin Street 25 Chestnut Street Georgetown, DE Wilmington, DE 19802 19947

Thomas Uebler Jeremy J. Riley Sarah P. Kaboly McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler 2751 Centerville Road, Suite 401 Wilmington, DE 19808

Re: Gwen Thornton v. Louise Lamborn, et al., C.A. No. 2022-0842-SEM

Dear Counsel:

This letter opinion resolves Defendant Louise Lamborn’s exceptions to the

Magistrate’s final report recommending that the court deny Lamborn’s request for

attorneys’ fees (the “Final Report”).1 Magistrate Selena E. Molina issued the Final

Report on June 17, 2024.2 Lamborn took exceptions timely, on July 8, 2024.3 I

reassigned this matter to myself for the limited purpose of resolving Lamborn’s

exceptions.4 This court applies de novo review to the factual and legal findings of a

1 C.A. No. 2022-0842-SEM Docket (“Dkt.”) 54.

2 Dkt. 53.

3 Dkt. 54; see Dkt. 53 ¶ 5.

4 Dkt. 55. C.A. No. 2022-0842-SEM August 12, 2024 Page 2 of 3

Magistrate.5 I have reviewed Lamborn’s motion de novo, and I agree with the

Magistrate’s well-reasoned Final Report.

Delaware courts follow the American Rule that each party is expected to pay

its own attorneys’ fees regardless of the outcome of the litigation.6 The court,

however, retains the ability to shift fees when faced with vexatious litigation conduct

“to deter abusive litigation and to protect the integrity of the judicial process.” 7

“Delaware courts have shifted fees for glaringly egregious conduct, such as forcing a

plaintiff to file suit to secure a clearly defined and established right, unnecessarily

prolonging or delaying litigation, falsifying records, or knowingly asserting frivolous

claims.”8 This exception only applies in extraordinary cases.9

Lamborn claims that the plaintiff knew this court would dismiss this action

and filed it only to increase Lamborn’s legal fees. But Lamborn’s theory lacks strong

evidence showing the plaintiff’s intent. I therefore decline to shift fees.

The exceptions are overruled. The Magistrate’s Final Reports dated January

29, 2024 and June 17, 2024, are adopted and final.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 DiGiacobbe v. Sestak, 743 A.2d 180, 184 (Del. 1999).

6 Chrysler Corp. v. Dann, 223 A.2d 384, 386 (Del. 1966) (“a litigant must, himself,

defray the cost of being represented by counsel”). 7 Montgomery Cellular Hldg. Co. v. Dobler, 880 A.2d 206, 227 (Del. 2005) (citation

omitted). 8 Pettry v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 2021 WL 3087027, at *1 (Del. Ch. July 22, 2021) (cleaned

up) (compiling cases). 9 RBC Cap. Mkts., LLC v. Jervis, 129 A.3d 816, 877 (Del. 2015) (cleaned up). C.A. No. 2022-0842-SEM August 12, 2024 Page 3 of 3

Sincerely,

/s/ Kathaleen St. J. McCormick

Chancellor

cc: All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)