D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
BONNIE W. DAVID COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
MAGISTRATE IN CHANCERY 34 THE CIRCLE
GEORGETOWN, DE 19947

Final Report: July 16, 2024
Date Submitted: July 2, 2024

Daniel F. McAllister, Esquire Sean A. Meluney, Esquire
McAllister Firm LLC William M. Alleman, Jr., Esquire
800 N. King St., Suite 203 Meluney Alleman & Spence, LLC
Wilmington, Delaware 19801 1143 Savannah Rd., Suite 3-A
Lewes, Delaware 19958

RE: D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC, et al.,
C.A. No. 2024-0070-BWD

Dear Counsel:

As you know, on June 18, 2024, I issued a final report resolving Bunting

Macks’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (the “Final Report”). 1 See D.R.

Horton, Inc. - New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC, 2024 WL 3045169 (Del. Ch. June

18, 2024) [hereinafter, “Final Report”]. I assume the readers’ familiarity with the

Final Report, which concluded that an order of specific performance is unavailable

under the terms of the Agreement and directed the parties to submit supplemental

memoranda addressing the basis (if any) for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction

over the remaining issues in this action. Id. at *1, *8.

1
Undefined capitalized terms have the meanings ascribed in the Final Report.
D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC, et al.,
C.A. No. 2024-0070-BWD
July 16, 2024
Page 2 of 13

On June 25, 2024, Horton moved for reargument of the Final Report (the

“Motion for Reargument”). D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey’s Mot. For Reargument

[hereinafter, “Mot.”], Dkt. 56. Defendants filed an opposition to the Motion for

Reargument on July 2, 2024. Defs.’ Opp’n To D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey’s

Mot. For Reargument, Dkt. 59. The same day, the parties filed supplemental

memoranda addressing subject matter jurisdiction. See Pl. D.R. Horton, Inc. - New

Jersey’s Mem. Of Law Re: Continuing Jurisdiction [hereinafter, “Pl.’s Supp. Br.”],

Dkt. 58; Defs.’ Supp. Br. Regarding Subject Matter Jurisdiction [hereinafter, “Defs.’

Supp. Br.”], Dkt. 60. This final report addresses the Motion for Reargument and the

lingering question of subject matter jurisdiction.

I. THE MOTION FOR REARGUMENT

Horton moves for reargument of the Final Report under Court of Chancery

Rule 59(f). “On a motion for reargument, the movant bears a heavy burden.”

Biocomposites GmbH v. Artoss, Inc., 2024 WL 2151937, at *1 (Del. Ch. May 14,

2024) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “To succeed and obtain

reargument, the moving party must demonstrate that the Court’s decision was

predicated upon a misunderstanding of a material fact or a misapplication of the

law.” Fisk Ventures, LLC v. Segal, 2008 WL 2721743, at *1 (Del. Ch. July 3, 2008)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted), aff’d, 984 A.2d 124, 2009 WL
D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC, et al.,
C.A. No. 2024-0070-BWD
July 16, 2024
Page 3 of 13

3338094 (Del. 2009) (TABLE). “If a motion for reargument ‘merely rehashes

arguments already made by the parties and considered by the Court’ in rendering the

decision for which reargument is sought, the motion must be denied.” Goldman v.

LBG Real Est. Cos., LLC, 2024 WL 773537, at *1 (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2024) (citation

omitted).

Horton seeks reargument on three grounds. First, Horton asserts that the Final

Report improperly “expanded [the] scope of the issue[s]” presented on Bunting

Macks’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. Mot. ¶ 21. Horton claims that

“neither party contended at the time that the passing of the Outside Closing Date

entirely foreclosed specific performance” and, in fact, “both parties agreed that

specific performance was an available remedy for some of Horton’s breach claims

under the Agreement . . . .” Id. ¶ 22. That is wrong. In its opening brief, Bunting

Macks argued that, “[b]ased on settled Delaware law, Horton cannot obtain the

‘specific performance’ or injunctions it seeks because they would extend the Phase

II closing date,” and sought a determination that “Horton cannot obtain Court orders

compelling Bunting Macks to obtain purportedly missing Approvals and then
D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC, et al.,
C.A. No. 2024-0070-BWD
July 16, 2024
Page 4 of 13

require Bunting Macks to sell Phase II to Horton at some unspecified date in the

future.” Dkt. 31 at 5. The Final Report resolves those fairly presented arguments. 2

Second, Horton claims “the Final Report fails to draw all reasonable

inferences in Horton’s favor . . . .” Mot. at 7; see also id. ¶¶ 15-17. Horton’s

explanation raises eyebrows: while Horton’s Complaint alleges that Bunting Macks

breached the Agreement by failing to diligently and in good faith seek the Approvals,

Horton now argues that the Court improperly assumed Bunting Macks breached the

Agreement and should have inferred that “Bunting Macks obtained all the

Approvals.” See Mot. ¶ 16 (“[A] reasonable inference that can be drawn from the

Complaint and 9 Exhibits is that Bunting Macks obtained all the Approvals. If so,

then Section 6(b) did not afford Horton the option to extend the outside closing

date.”); id. ¶ 19 (acknowledging “this might be an inference against Horton”). To

state the obvious, the Court did not err by failing to draw inferences against Horton.

Third, Horton argues that “the Final Report misapprehends the fact that

Horton filed its lawsuit before the cure period expired, and before the parties’

2
While Horton suggests that the Final Report misunderstood or failed to consider Horton’s
positions on the prevention doctrine and material breach, the Final Report considered and
rejected both. See Final Report at *6-*8 (rejecting Horton’s argument that Bunting Macks’
alleged breaches caused the passing of the Phase II Outside Closing Date); id. at *8
(rejecting Horton’s argument that Bunting Macks’ alleged breaches provided a basis to
order specific performance).
D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC, et al.,
C.A. No. 2024-0070-BWD
July 16, 2024
Page 5 of 13

obligation to close was extinguished.” Mot. at 4. It did not. The Final Report

accepted Horton’s allegation that as of the filing of the Complaint, “[t]he outside

closing date ha[d] passed” without Horton “deliver[ing] a Phase II Approvals

Election Notice to extend [it],” and further explained that “Horton did not close on

its purchase of Phase II within the 45-day cure period provided in the Agreement

. . . .” Final Report at *3, *5 n.6. Horton also fails to explain how the Final Report

misapplied the law to those facts. Horton now argues that February 5, 2024 was the

“true outside closing deadline”3 and filing the Complaint one week before that date

excused Horton from “deliver[ing] a Phase II Approvals Election Notice . . . .” 4 But

Horton cites no authority to support its position that filing the Complaint suspended

the parties’ obligations under the Agreement.5

3
Mot. ¶ 8. Horton did not raise this argument in its briefing on the motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings. In fact, during oral argument, Horton conceded that the Phase
II Outside Closing Date was “the date by which the closing must occur.” D.R. Horton, Inc.
- New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC, C.A. No. 2024-0070-BWD, at 38 (Del. Ch. May 29,
2024) (TRANSCRIPT), Dkt. 55. See Emerald P’rs v. Berlin, 726 A.2d 1215, 1224 (Del.
1999) (“Issues not briefed are deemed waived.”).
4
See Mot. ¶ 10 (“Because Horton filed before the end of its cure period, before Bunting
Macks terminated the Agreement, and before the parties’ obligation to close was
extinguished, it is unclear why Horton would have needed to deliver a Phase II Approvals
Election Notice, either before the original outside closing date or before the expiration of
the cure period.”).
5
Horton argues that extending the Phase II Outside Closing Date would have been futile
once it filed the Complaint because “[t]rial is scheduled for December 3, 2024, beyond the
180-day extension Section 6(b) affords.” Mot. ¶ 11. But Horton could have sought an
D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC, et al.,
C.A. No. 2024-0070-BWD
July 16, 2024
Page 6 of 13

Accordingly, the Motion for Reargument is denied.

II. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The Court has an “independent obligation to consider whether it has subject

matter jurisdiction,” even if the parties have not raised the issue. Naughty Monkey

LLC v. Marinemax Ne. LLC, 2010 WL 5545409, at *3 n.35 (Del. Ch. Dec. 23, 2010).

The Court of Chancery is a court of limited jurisdiction. Title 10, Section 342 of the

Delaware Code states that “[t]he Court of Chancery shall not have jurisdiction to

determine any matter wherein sufficient remedy may be had by common law, or

statute, before any other court or jurisdiction of this State.” 10 Del. C. § 342. This

Court “maintains subject matter jurisdiction ‘only when (1) the complaint states a

claim for relief that is equitable in character, (2) the complaint requests an equitable

expedited trial prior to the extended Phase II Outside Closing Date, or the parties could
have agreed to an extension to avoid a breakneck schedule. See, e.g., Tiffany & Co. v.
LVMH Moet Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SE, C.A. No. 2020-0768-JRS, at 52 (Del. Ch. Sept.
21, 2020 (TRANSCRIPT) (explaining on a motion to expedite that “relevant factors in the
balancing of how fast to go in cases like this are the outside or drop-dead date and other
contingencies that might make it necessary to decide the matter by a date certain[,]” but
noting that the buyer had agreed that “‘if the Court were to determine that [the buyer] was
not entitled to refuse to close under the terms of the Agreement as of the Outside Date, [the
buyer] would agree to specific performance at that time’”); Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi
AG, C.A. No. 2018-0300-JTL, at 31-32 (Del. Ch. May 2, 2018) (TRANSCRIPT) (noting on
a motion to expedite, in response to the Court’s concerns that a scheduling ruling could
eliminate the prospect of specific performance, that the buyer would not rely on the passing
of the outside date).
D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC, et al.,
C.A. No. 2024-0070-BWD
July 16, 2024
Page 7 of 13

remedy when there is no adequate remedy at law or (3) Chancery is vested with

jurisdiction by statute.’” Smith v. Scott, 2021 WL 1592463, at *14 (Del. Ch. Apr.

23, 2021) (citation omitted). “Chancery jurisdiction is not conferred by the

incantation of magic words[,]” and simply asking for an equitable remedy is not an

“open sesame” to equity jurisdiction. Yu v. GSM Nation, LLC, 2017 WL 2889515,

at *3 (Del. Ch. July 7, 2017) (first quoting McMahon v. New Castle Assocs., 532

A.2d 601, 603 (Del. Ch. 1987); and then Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Comdisco, Inc.,

602 A.2d 74, 78 (Del. Ch. 1991)). Rather, “‘[i]f a realistic evaluation [of the

pleadings] leads to the conclusion that an adequate remedy is available, this court,

in conformity with the command of Section 342 of Title 10 of the Delaware Code,

will not accept jurisdiction over the matter.’” Id. at *3 (quoting McMahon, 532 A.2d

at 603).

After concluding that specific performance is not an available remedy under

the Agreement, the Final Report instructed the parties to submit supplemental

memoranda addressing the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The

parties now dispute whether Horton’s additional requests for equitable remedies

support the Court’s continuing exercise of subject matter jurisdiction.

Horton contends that Counts III and IV and aspects of Count II seek additional

equitable remedies that support the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Pl.’s Supp.
D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC, et al.,
C.A. No. 2024-0070-BWD
July 16, 2024
Page 8 of 13

Br. at 2-3. Those counts concern a recorded Joint Development and Reciprocal

Easement Agreement (the “Declaration”), which permits a “Bunting Affiliate” to

expand and share the pump station and force main (the “Pump Station System”) for

Coastal Villages, “provided such Bunting Affiliate enters into a cost sharing and

easement agreement to share the cost of the construction.” Compl. ¶ 30. The

Complaint alleges that Bunting Macks has submitted plans for a Pump Station

System that will service not only Phases II through IV of Coastal Villages, but also

a neighboring property, “Downey/Hickman,” being developed by Bunting Macks

affiliate Roxana Road LLC (“Roxana”). Id. ¶¶ 31-35. Horton contends Bunting

Macks’ plans will expand the force main in Phase I, requiring Bunting Macks and

Roxana to “enter into [a] cost sharing agreement” with Horton. Id. ¶ 52.

In addition, the Declaration grants Horton and Bunting Macks a reciprocal

temporary access easement for “vehicular ingress, egress, and circulation between

and among the Phases.” Compl., Ex. H § 2.3. According to the Complaint, Roxana

has submitted development approvals seeking to use a planned interconnection for

Coastal Villages (the “Interconnection”) to connect Phase II to Downey/Hickman.

Compl. ¶ 46. The Complaint alleges that the Interconnection improperly

“encumbers” Phase II and may harm Phase I by “provid[ing] unwanted traffic and
D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC, et al.,
C.A. No. 2024-0070-BWD
July 16, 2024
Page 9 of 13

encourag[ing] misuse of amenities, increasing management costs and devaluing the

lots within [Coastal Villages].” Id. ¶¶ 48-49.

Count II seeks “an injunction preventing Bunting Macks from processing

plans for the Pump Station System unless a Bunting Affiliate exercises its rights

under the Declaration and complies with its [cost sharing] obligations thereunder.”

Id. ¶ 60. Count III alleges that Bunting Macks and Roxana will be unjustly enriched

by the Interconnection and the Pump Station System. Id. ¶ 63. Count IV asserts a

claim against Roxana for tortious interference with contractual relations and seeks

to “enjoin Roxana . . . from pursuing plans and approvals based in any way on the

Interconnection or Pump Station System, and from proceeding with construction of

the Interconnection or with any development based on approvals obtained using

development plans showing the Interconnection or Pump Station System.” Id. ¶ 74.

Horton’s requests for equitable relief premised on the Pump Station System

and the Interconnection are insufficient to create subject matter jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding Horton’s purported request to enjoin Bunting Macks from

proceeding with plans for the Pump Station System, the Complaint makes clear that

Horton’s claim is monetary—Horton alleges that Bunting Macks’ plans will expand
D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC, et al.,
C.A. No. 2024-0070-BWD
July 16, 2024
Page 10 of 13

the Pump Station System6 and seeks to require Bunting Macks and Roxana to share

in the increased costs. 7 A court of law can determine whether cost sharing is required

under the Declaration and award damages if appropriate. See Delta Eta Corp. v.

City of Newark, 2023 WL 2982180, at *8 (Del. Ch. Feb. 2, 2023) (“[A] request for

an injunction will not invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction if the plaintiff

has an adequate remedy at law.”); Hillsboro Energy, LLC v. Secure Energy, Inc.,

2008 WL 4561227, at *2 (Del. Ch. Oct. 3, 2008) (“A simple contract claim lacking

the requisite equitable hooks will not swing open the doors of equity[.] [The

plaintiff] does not provide sufficient reason for me to believe that a legal remedy

will not be ‘sufficiently adequate.’” (footnote omitted)).

6
Horton alleges that “Bunting Macks’s proposed Pump Station System design will require
the force main in Phase I (currently under development by Horton) to increase in size.”
Compl. ¶ 33. Bunting Macks responds that it “contemplate[s] constructing a forcemain
that conforms to the original Phase I plans and shouldering the entire cost of constructing
a Pump Station System to serve their properties in Phases II-IV and Downey/Hickman[,]”
but “[t]o the extent necessary, Defendants have repeatedly stated that they would enter into
a cost sharing agreement concerning an increased-capacity Pump Station System, and
would compensate Horton as may be necessary, commensurate with any burden on Phase
I.” Defs.’ Supp. Br. at 11.
7
See Pl.’s Supp. Br. at 3 (“Without Court intervention, Defendants will burden Phase I
with development approvals that require Horton to build entrances and infrastructure for
the benefit of the later Phases and for a second development on Roxana Road’s property,
without any just compensation to Horton.” (emphasis added)); id. at 12 (same).
D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC, et al.,
C.A. No. 2024-0070-BWD
July 16, 2024
Page 11 of 13

As for the Interconnection, Horton’s contention that the Interconnection

improperly “encumbers” Phase II is premised on Horton’s ability to close on Phase

II, a proposition the Final Report rejected. 8 And the allegation that the

Interconnection could harm Horton’s interests in Phase I likewise does not support

injunctive relief, notwithstanding Horton’s incantation of the words “quiet title.”9

For one, a court of law can interpret Horton’s rights under the Declaration; again,

there is no reason that Horton’s challenge to the Interconnection based on the

8
Horton argues that it still “has standing to challenge the Interconnection under Section
15(c) of the Agreement[,]” which states:
[F]rom and after the final Closing hereunder or any termination of this
Contract and for a period of twelve (12) months following the final Closing
hereunder, each party shall have the right to pursue its actual (but not
consequential or punitive) damages against the other party for: (1) a breach
of any covenant or agreement contained herein that is performable after or
that expressly survives the final Closing or termination of this Contract
(including the indemnification obligations contained in this Contract), and
(2) a breach in any material respect of any representation or warranty in this
Contract.
Pl.’s Supp. Br. at 18; Compl., Ex. A § 15(c). The availability of damages under Section
15(c) does not support equitable jurisdiction.
9
See Pl.’s Supp. Br. at 3 (“Horton’s Count II seeks to void the Phase II Plans showing the
Interconnection and Pump Station System, and in doing so also effectively seeks to quiet
Horton’s title in Phase I.” (citing Compl. ¶¶ 53-61)); id. (“[I]f specific performance is
unavailable under the Agreement, Horton’s need to quiet title and for injunctive relief as
the Phase I owner is even greater.”); id. at 11 (“In seeking to void the Phase II plans, Horton
seeks in essence to quiet its title in Phase I, which provides yet another basis for equitable
jurisdiction[.]”).
D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC, et al.,
C.A. No. 2024-0070-BWD
July 16, 2024
Page 12 of 13

Declaration cannot be resolved through a declaratory judgment.10 See, e.g.,

Clevenger v. Insight Bldg. Co., LLC, 2023 WL 8997734, at *4 (Del. Ch. Dec. 28,

2023) (“[W]hile the [Petition] includes the ‘magic words’ of certain equitable

remedies in an attempt to invoke equity jurisdiction, the Superior Court can grant a

full, fair, and complete remedy” through a declaratory judgment.”), R & R approved

by, 2024 WL 115879 (Del. Ch. 2024). Moreover, Horton’s allegation that the

Interconnection may provide unwanted traffic and encourage misuse of amenities in

Phase I is too speculative to support injunctive relief at this time. 11 See In re COVID-

Related Restrictions on Religious Servs., 285 A.3d 1205, 1211 (Del. Ch. 2022)

(granting motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where the

“plaintiffs ha[d] not shown at this point . . . any basis for a prophylactic permanent

injunction”); see also Kroll v. City of Wilm., 2023 WL 6012795, at *6 (Del. Ch. Sept.

15, 2023) (“[B]ecause the harm against which the plaintiff seeks protection is

10
Horton suggests that its unjust enrichment claim is equitable, but “unjust enrichment is
historically a legal, not an equitable, claim. The absence of an adequate remedy at law is
required only if an unjust enrichment claim is brought in the Court of Chancery and there
is no other independent basis for equitable jurisdiction.” State ex rel. Jennings v. Monsanto
Co., 299 A.3d 372, 391 (Del. 2023) (footnote omitted).
11
As Bunting Macks points out, the Interconnection ultimately will become a public road.
Defs.’ Supp. Br. at 19. Thus, this theoretical harm to Horton could exist only after the
Interconnection is constructed but before it is dedicated to the town.
D.R. Horton, Inc. - New Jersey v. Bunting Macks LLC, et al.,
C.A. No. 2024-0070-BWD
July 16, 2024
Page 13 of 13

speculative, the . . . [i]njunction may not serve as a basis for this court to assert

subject matter jurisdiction.”).

Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Horton’s remaining

claims, the Complaint should be dismissed with leave to transfer.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, the Motion for Reargument is denied. I

further recommend that the Court dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, with leave to transfer to the Superior Court pursuant to 10 Del. C.

§ 1902. This is a final report under Court of Chancery Rule 144. The stay of

exceptions is lifted; exceptions to this final report and all prior reports must be filed

within eleven days.

Sincerely,

/s/ Bonnie W. David

Bonnie W. David
Magistrate in Chancery

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