Nicholas Kroll v. City of Wilmington

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
KATHALEEN ST. JUDE MCCORMICK LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
CHANCELLOR 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734

May 28, 2024

Robert C. McDonald Robert M. Goff
Adrienne M. McDonald City of Wilmington, Law Department
Silverman McDonald & Friedman 800 N. French Street, 9th Floor
1010 N. Bancroft Parkway Wilmington, DE 19801
Wilmington, DE 19805

Re: Nicholas Kroll v. City of Wilmington et al.,
C.A. No. 2019-0969-KSJM

Dear Counsel:

This letter opinion resolves the defendants’ April 15, 2024, request for leave to

move for summary judgment. 1

Based on the plaintiff’s interrogatory responses, deposition, and expert report,

the defendants state that the plaintiff no longer seeks reinstatement. 2 Because the

plaintiff’s request for reinstatement supplied the basis for this court’s jurisdiction,

the defendants argue this court now lacks jurisdiction. 3 Accordingly, they wish to

renew their jurisdictional arguments made in support of dismissal through a motion

for summary judgment.

1 C.A. No. 2019-0969-KSJM, Docket (“Dkt.”) 76 (Defs.’ Mot. for Leave Ltr.).

2 Id. at 2–4.

3 Id. at 5 (arguing that because the plaintiff’s “sought after remedy is a decision or

declaration by a court as to whether the City committed legal error in applying the
unlawfully modified residency definition in its administrative disciplinary
proceedings leading to his termination, as he expressly and repeatedly avers, then a
certiorari review of the record of those hearings will suffice, and is precisely what he
seeks”).
C.A. No. 2019-0969-KSJM
May 28, 2024
Page 2 of 3

The plaintiff responds that “[t]he issue of jurisdiction has been extensively

briefed and argued by the parties,” and “a repeat examination as to jurisdiction” on

summary judgment is not warranted. 4 I agree.

The plaintiff’s position moots aspects of his claim but does not divest this court

of jurisdiction. “Once the [c]ourt determines that equitable relief is warranted, even

if subsequent events moot all equitable causes of action or if the court ultimately

determines that equitable relief is not warranted, the court retains the power to

decide the legal features of the claim pursuant to the cleanup doctrine.” 5

Although this court has the discretion to decline jurisdiction and has done so

where the judicial officer has had limited involvement with the action, 6 that is not

the case here. I have presided over this case since December 2019 and judicial

efficiency warrants retaining jurisdiction. 7

4 Dkt. 78 at 1 (Pl.’s Opp’n Ltr.). I note that the scheduling order gives the party
against whom summary judgment is sought the ability to submit a response within
five business days after the filing of the letter seeking leave. Dkt. 72 ¶ 2. The
plaintiff’s response, if he chose to respond, was due April 22, 2024. The plaintiff
submitted it on April 30, 2024. I expect that moving forward there will be no further
violations of the scheduling order.
5 Zebroski v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 2014 WL 2156984, at *9 (Del. Ch. Apr. 30,

2014) (quoting Prestancia Mgmt. Gp., Inc. v. Va. Heritage Found., II LLC, 2005 WL
1364616, at *11 (Del. Ch. May 27, 2005)).
6 Id. (declining to retain jurisdiction under the cleanup doctrine where the court did

not make “any factual determinations” central to the legal claim).
7 Getty Refining & Mkt. Co. v. Park Oil, Inc., 385 A.2d 147, 150 (Del. Ch. 1978) (noting

reasons for retaining jurisdiction under the cleanup doctrine include: “to resolve a
factual issue which must be determined in the proceedings; to avoid multiplicity of
suits; to promote judicial efficiency; to do full justice; to avoid great expense; to afford
C.A. No. 2019-0969-KSJM
May 28, 2024
Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, the defendants’ request for leave to move for summary judgment

is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick

Chancellor

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

complete relief in one action; and to overcome insufficient modes of procedure at law”
(citations omitted)).