Johnson v. Hurdle

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: August 8, 2023
• Docket: N21C-07-072 FWW
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

BRUCE E. JOHNSON, Guardian ) ad litem for LEILANI CORPUS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N21C-07-072 FWW ) STEVEN W. BROOKE HURDLE and ) REGINALD JAMES HURDLE, ) ) Defendants. )

Submitted: July 28, 2023 Decided: August 8, 2023

Upon the Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings or Partial Summary Judgment of Plaintiff Bruce E. Johnson, Guardian ad litem for Leilani Corpus GRANTED.

ORDER

Olga K. Beskrone, Esquire, COMMUNITY LEGAL AID SOCIETY, INC., 100 W. 10th Street, Suite 801, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attorney for Plaintiff Bruce E. Johnson, Guardian ad litem for Leilani Corpus.

Steven W. Brooke Hurdle, 3434 New Jersey Avenue, Pennsauken, NJ 08110, Defendant, pro se.

WHARTON, J. This 8th day of August 2023, upon consideration of the Motion for Partial

Judgment on the Pleadings or Partial Summary Judgment of Plaintiff Bruce E.

Johnston, Guardian ad litem for Leilani Corpus,1 and the record in this case, it

appears to the Court that:

1. On July 14, 2021, Bruce E. Johnson (“Johnson”), purporting to

represent Leilani Corpus (“Corpus”) as holder of her power of attorney, filed an

eight-line handwritten Complaint against Defendant Stephen Brooke Hurdle

(“Hurdle”) alleging that he owed her an unpaid debt.2 Concurrently, Johnson moved

to be appointed guardian ad litem for Corpus.3 Hurdle submitted a letter response

on August 11, 2021, agreeing that “a debt is owed to Leilani Corpus” which he

intended to repay, stating that he “feel[s] the urgent responsibility to make sure [he]

make[s] Miss Leilani Corpus whole with reasonable immediacy.” 4 On August 16th

the Court granted Johnson’s motion to serve as guardian ad litem for Corpus.5

2. Johnson was able to secure counsel who sought and received

permission from the Court to file an amended complaint.6 The Amended Complaint

was filed on September 26, 2022.7 It added Reginald James Hurdle as a co-

1 D.I. 26. 2 Compl., D.I. 1. 3 D.I. 1. 4 Def.’s Resp., D.I. 9. 5 D.I. 10. 6 D.I. 18. 7 Amend. Compl., D.I. 19.

2 defendant and sought money damages in excess of $82,000.8 Service on Defendant

Reginald James Hurdle has not been perfected and counsel for Johnson represents

that Johnson has decided not to pursue the matter against Reginald James Hurdle.9

Pro se Defendant Stephen W. Brooke Hurdle answered the Amended Complaint on

November 23, 2022.10 In his answer Hurdle admits that he executed a promissory

note in favor of Corpus in the amount of $72,000 plus $10,000. 11 Additionally, he

repeatedly states that he intends to repay Corpus what he owes her. 12 In particular,

he states that he “vows to sell his only available asset and repay Ms. Corpus

$40,000+ from proceeds.”13

3. Based on the foregoing Johnson moves for partial judgment on the

pleadings or partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.14 The Court sent the

litigants a letter directing that any response to the motion was to be filed no later

than July 28th.15 No response has been received by the Court as of the date of this

Order.

4. Pursuant to Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(c):

8 Id. 9 D.I. 25. 10 Def.’s Ans., D.I. 22. 11 Id. at ⁋⁋ 12, 24. 12 Id. at ⁋⁋ 21, 30, 25, 26, 27, 36, 38. 13 Id. at ⁋ 30. 14 D.I. 26. 15 D.I. 27. Although the letter does not reflect that it was sent to Hurdle, the Court has been informed by its case manager that notice in fact was sent to him.

3 After the pleadings are closed but within such time so as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings. If, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the Court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.16

Upon considering such a motion, the Court must accept all well-pled facts as true

and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.17 The

motion may only be granted where the Court is satisfied that “no material issue of

fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”18

5. Johnson’s motion seeks relief either under Rule 12(c) as a motion for

partial judgment on the pleadings or, if the Court considers matters outside the

pleadings, as one for partial summary judgment.19 The Court need not consider

matters outside the pleadings in order to resolve the motion on the pleadings.

6. The Court accepts the well-pled facts in Hurdle’s Answer to the

Amended Complaint as true and construes all reasonable inferences in his favor.

According Hurdle some deference as a pro se defendant, the Court, nevertheless,

16 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(c). 17 Silver Lake Office Plaza, LLC v. Lanard & Axilbund, Inc., 2014 WL 595378, at *6 (Del. Super. Jan. 17, 2014). 18 Desert Equities, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley Leveraged Equity Fund II, L.P., 624 A.2d 1199, 1205 (Del. 1993). 19 D.I. 26.

4 finds Hurdle has repeatedly admitted that he is liable to Corpus for money damages

as a result of the transaction alleged in the Amended Complaint in an amount of at

least $40,000. The Court concludes that there is no material issue of fact as to

Hurdle’s liability to Corpus in the amount of at least $40,000, and that she is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law.

THEREFORE, the Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings of Plaintiff

Bruce E. Johnson, Guardian ad litem for Leilani Corpus, is GRANTED as follows:

1. Defendant Steven W. Brooke Hurdle is liable to Plaintiff Bruce E.

Johnson, Guardian ad litem for Leilani Corpus, on the promissory note attached to

the Amended Complaint as Exhibit B in an amount not less than $40,000; and

2. The matter shall proced to trial on the issue of damages only.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ferris W. Wharton Ferris W. Wharton, J.