pleadings claim in Delaware

2024Co. v. SharkNinja Operating LLC, 2020 WL 6795965 , at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 19, 2020) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also V&M Aerospace LLC v. V&M Co., 2019 WL 3238920 , at *3-4 (Del. Super. Ct. July 18, 2019) (concluding that the difference between judgment on the pleadings standard and the summary judgment standard was “immaterial” because a “question of law” alone was involved). 72 United Vanguard Fund, Inc. v. TakeCare, Inc., 693 A.2d 1076, 1079 (Del. 1997). - 15 - reasonable meaning and therefore do not create material disputes of fact.73 IV.

2021Ct. July 18, 2019) (concluding that the difference between judgment on the pleadings standard and the summary judgment standard was “immaterial” because a “question of law” alone was involved). 85 United Vanguard Fund, Inc. v. TakeCare, Inc., 693 A.2d 1076, 1079 (Del. 1997). 86 Del.

2026Corp. v. Altenberg, 2020 WL 2529806, at *26 (Del. Ch. May 19, 2020), aff’d, 263 A.3d 1013 (Del. 2021) (TABLE). 20 definite theory, and on that theory the plaintiff must succeed, or not succeed at all.”25 If the facts did not support the theory that the plaintiff had picked at the outset of the case, then the court would not grant relief, even if the facts established an entitlement to relief under a different theory.26 Through a combination of rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “effectively abolished the restrictive theory of the pleadings doctrine, making it clear that it is unnecess

2025Dec. 30, 1993) (ORDER); Ingersoll v. Rollins Broadcasting of Delaware, Inc., 272 A.2d 336, 338 (Del. 1970)). 33 Id. (quoting Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996)). 34 Id. (quoting Clough, 686 A.2d at 159 ). 6 or if the act it would compel would be futile. 35 In the context of the law enforcement disciplinary process, the Court will deny a writ if the alleged violation of an officer’s statutory due process rights is a mere technical one not resulting in prejudice to the officer’s substantive rights.36 The Declaratory Judgment Act gives Delaware courts discretion to either render a dec

2025Dec. 30, 1993) (ORDER); Ingersoll v. Rollins Broadcasting of Delaware, Inc., 272 A.2d 336, 338 (Del. 1970)). 33 Id. (quoting Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996)). 34 Id. (quoting Clough, 686 A.2d at 159 ). 6 or if the act it would compel would be futile. 35 In the context of the law enforcement disciplinary process, the Court will deny a writ if the alleged violation of an officer’s statutory due process rights is a mere technical one not resulting in prejudice to the officer’s substantive rights.36 The Declaratory Judgment Act gives Delaware courts discretion to either render a dec

2025ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review Mandamus is an exceptional remedy granted not by right, but only according to the sound discretion of the Court petitioned.32 The Superior Court may issue a writ of mandamus “to command a lower court, agency, or public official to perform a duty ‘to which the petitioner has established a clear legal right.’” 33 The Court shall not do so, however, unless “the petitioner can establish that there is no other adequate remedy available.” 34 The Court may deny a writ if its issuance would be inequitable 29 D.I. 16. 30 Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b) provides that “[i]f

2025Dec. 30, 1993) (ORDER); Ingersoll v. Rollins Broadcasting of Delaware, Inc., 272 A.2d 336, 338 (Del. 1970)). 33 Id. (quoting Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996)). 34 Id. (quoting Clough, 686 A.2d at 159 ). 6 or if the act it would compel would be futile. 35 In the context of the law enforcement disciplinary process, the Court will deny a writ if the alleged violation of an officer’s statutory due process rights is a mere technical one not resulting in prejudice to the officer’s substantive rights.36 The Declaratory Judgment Act gives Delaware courts discretion to either render a dec

2025Dec. 30, 1993) (ORDER); Ingersoll v. Rollins Broadcasting of Delaware, Inc., 272 A.2d 336, 338 (Del. 1970)). 33 Id. (quoting Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996)). 34 Id. (quoting Clough, 686 A.2d at 159 ). 6 or if the act it would compel would be futile. 35 In the context of the law enforcement disciplinary process, the Court will deny a writ if the alleged violation of an officer’s statutory due process rights is a mere technical one not resulting in prejudice to the officer’s substantive rights.36 The Declaratory Judgment Act gives Delaware courts discretion to either render a dec

2020See Orman v. Cullman, 794 A.2d 5, 31 (Del. Ch. 2002) (“Reaching this decision with regard to the loyalty of the Board that approved the merger, however, does not rebut the business judgment presumption at this stage of the litigation.

2018Oct. 27, 2010). 23 Ramunno v. Crawley, 705 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Del. 1998). 6 If the trial court “considers matters outside of the complaint, a motion to dismiss is usually converted into a motion for summary judgment and the parties are permitted to expand the record.”24 Civil Rule 12(b) states: [i]f, on a motion asserting the defense . . . for failure of the pleadings to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 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 al

2017The United States Supreme Court examined Section 1983 pleading requirements in the context of a motion to dismiss in Ashcroft v. Iqbal.8 There, the United States Supreme Court held that [t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is 6 Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967, 968 (Del. 1978). 7 Id. 8 556 U.S. 662 (2009). 4 plausible on its face . . . .” A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for t

2016Co., LLC v. EV3, Inc., 937 A.2d 1275, 1286 (Del. 2007) (noting that parties should have adequate notice if the Court intends to convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment). 5 IV.