Offit Kurman, P.A. v. Mark Lillard
This text of Offit Kurman, P.A. v. Mark Lillard (Offit Kurman, P.A. v. Mark Lillard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
OFFIT KURMAN, P.A., ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) MARK LILLARD, IMC OF ) C.A. No. N25C-03-120 CLS DELAWARE, LLC, FAIN AUTO ) SALES, LLC; CORDOVA AUTO ) GROUP, LLC, LILLARD LAND ) HOLDING, LLC, and SHIPPUDEN ) TRANSPORT, LLC, ) ) Defendants.
Date Submitted: June 4, 2025 Date Decided: September 15, 2025
ORDER
Having considered Plaintiff Offit Kurman’s Complaint,1 Defendant Mark
Lillard’s Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Dismiss,2 and Kurman’s response to
that motion,3 it appears to the Court that:
1. On March 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting breach of contract
and quasi-contract claims against Defendant, a former client, for unpaid legal fees.4
1 See D.I. 1 (“Compl.”). 2 See D.I. 15 (“MTD”). 3 See D.I. 16 (“Resp. to MTD”). 4 See generally Compl. 2. Defendant then filed a response comprised of both a motion for sanctions
under Superior Court Civil Rule 11, arguing that Plaintiff asserted factual allegations
lacking evidentiary support, and a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
“improper joinder,” and “lack of contractual privity.”5
3. Plaintiff and Defendant have another matter pending before the Court. On
October 3, 2024, Defendant filed a complaint against Plaintiff for legal malpractice,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligent supervision.6 Both parties
have conceded that the matters are related.7
4. The Court has concerns on why these cases must proceed separately. Under
Superior Court Civil Rule 42(a), the Court has discretion to consolidate “actions
involving a common question of law or fact [that] are pending before the Court.”
5. Accordingly, within two weeks, Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant shall
explain, in writing, why this action should not be consolidated with the other action
pending before the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Calvin L. Scott
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.
5 MTD at 8, 17. 6 Complaint at 26–64, Lillard v. Kurman, N24C-10-001 DJB (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2024). 7 MTD at 5; Resp. to MTD at 1.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Offit Kurman, P.A. v. Mark Lillard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/offit-kurman-pa-v-mark-lillard-delsuperct-2025.