Thomas v. Claymont Associates, LLC - Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

Detected March 7th, 2026

Summary

The Delaware Superior Court is considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the case of Thomas v. Claymont Associates, LLC. The defendant, Easy Money Group Acquisition Co., LLC, argues it is not responsible for the plaintiff's alleged slip and fall injuries due to lease agreement terms. The court is reviewing whether the motion should be treated as a motion for summary judgment.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

This document details a court order regarding a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Easy Money Group Acquisition Co., LLC in the case of Michelle Thomas v. Claymont Associates, LLC. The defendant argues that the lease agreement absolves them of responsibility for the plaintiff's alleged slip and fall injuries. The court notes that because the defendant submitted evidence outside the pleadings (photographs, lease agreement, manager statement), the motion will be treated as one for summary judgment.

Compliance officers should note that this is a procedural ruling in a specific case. While it involves contract interpretation and premises liability, it does not establish new regulatory requirements or penalties. The court is currently determining if material issues of fact exist that would prevent judgment. Further developments in this case may provide insights into how lease agreements are interpreted in premises liability claims in Delaware.

Source document (simplified)

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COU RT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE Miche lle T homas, P lain tiff, v. C laym ont A ssoc iate s, LLC A Dela war e Corp ora tion, Darle y Assoc iates, LLC, a Delaware Corpor at ion d/ b/a D olla r Fam ily, and Easy Mo ney Gr oup Ac quisi tion Co., LLC, d/ b/a Minut e Loan Cente r, Defe nda nts.))))))))))))) C.A. No. N25C - 11 - 1 34 FJJ ORD ER On Def enda nt E asy Mon ey G roup A cqu isi tion C o., L LC’s Moti on For Judgment On The P leadings Havi ng co nside red D efen dant Easy M one y Gro up Acq uisit ion Co., L LC’ s d/b/a Minu te Loa n Ce nter (“ Eas y Mone y”) Moti on for Judgm en t on the Pl ea ding s and Pla intif f, M ichel le Th omas’ (“Plain tiff”), resp onse i t appea rs to the Cou rt tha t: 1. This is a pers onal i nj ury act ion where P lain tiff alleg es tha t she susta ined injur ies as a res ult of a slip an d fa ll whi le wal king on the side walk of the proper ty of Cla ymon t Shop ping C ente r (“Cla ymon t”) in a n area near or around the Easy Money and/o r a Dolla r Fa mily st ore. One of the Defe nda nt s sue d is Easy Mo ney. 2. Easy M oney has f iled f or Jud gmen t on th e Plea dings. The m otion is b ase d on an ar gume nt tha t Plain tiff fell in a rea tha t was n ot the respo nsibi lity of

2 Easy M oney. 3. Under S uperior C ourt Civil R ule 12(c), “an y part y may m ove for judgmen t on the plea dings.” “In resolvin g a Rule 12(c) mot ion, th e Court accepts the truth of all well - plead ed fac ts and draws a ll reasona ble factua l inferen ces i n favor of the non - movant.” 1 The stand ar d of rev iew on a m otion f or judgm ent on the ple adi ngs tra cks the sta ndar d for a mo tio n to dism iss un der Rule 1 2(b)(6). 2 Acc ordi ngl y, “[t]h e Cour t will n ot grant j udgm ent on th e plead ing s unle ss, af ter dr awing a ll rea sonable in ference s in fav or of the non - movi ng par ty, no m ateria l iss ues of fact e xists and m ovant is enti tled t o judgm ent a s a ma tter of law. ” 3 Where matt ers ou tside the plea dings ar e prese nte d to the Court the mot ion shall be trea ted as o ne for summ ar y judgm ent a nd a ll par ties are r eq uired to be give n a rea sona ble oppor tunity to prese nt all mate rial made per tinent to suc h a motion by R ule 56. 4 4. In su ppor t of i ts mo tion E asy M oney atta che d to its M otion: (1) p hotogra phs of the allege d area where P laintiff fell; (2) the lea se agree ment bet ween Claym ont Assoc iate s and EM G Acquis ition Compa ny of Del. LL C a nd (3) a sta tement fr om the Eas y Mon ey St ore Manager who a llegedl y saw th e 1 Fort is Advi sors L LC v. B osto n Dynamics Inc., 2025 WL 1356521, a t *3 (De l. Super. Apr. 29, 2025) (citing D’Antonio v. Wesley C oll., Inc., 2023 WL 9021767, a t *2 (D el. Super. Dec. 29, 2023)). 2 Silver Lak e Offi ce Plaza, LLC v. L anard & Ax ilbund, I nc., 2014 WL 59 5378, at *6 (Del. S uper. J an. 17, 2 014) (quotin g Blanco v. AMVAC C hem. C orp., 2012 W L 31944 12, at *6 (Del. Super. Aug. 8, 2 012)). 3 Four Cents H ldgs., L LC v. M&E Pr inting, Inc., 2 025 WL 2 366460, at * 4 (Del. Super. Aug. 12, 2025) (citing Ford Motor C o. v. Ear thbound, L LC, 2024 WL 30671 14, at *7 (Del. S uper. June 5, 2024)). 4 Del. Super. Ct. Ci v. R. 12(c).

3 Plain tiff ’s fall. The exist ence and re liance by Easy M oney on the se mater ials, espec ially tho se mater ials bey ond the lease, conver t this motio n into o ne for summ ary judgm ent. 5. Easy Mone y co nten ds t hat it is enti tled to Ju dgment because the lease agree me nt betwe en i t and the Land lord, Cla ymon t Ass ocia tes, L LC (wh o is also a Defendant in this c ase) puts the o bliga tion o n Claymo nt As sociate s to maintai n the area whe re the Pla intiff fell. 6. Plain tiff respo nds tha t it is prematu re to gra nt Easy Money’s motion and that t here are a numbe r of d isput ed fa cts t hat preve nt the C our t f rom granting Judgm ent on t he Plea din gs. 7. I agree with Plai ntiff. As Pla int iff poi nts out Ea sy Money ha s conce ded fo r purp oses of th is mot ion t hat the lo cati on of the s ubjec t inci dent occ urred direc tly in f ron t of its reta il locat ion an d that the leas e bet ween E asy Mon ey and its lan dlor d prov ides: In the e ven t that the P remi ses sh ould be come in need of repai rs requi red to be made by th e Landlord her eunder, Tenan t sha ll gi ve imm edia te w ri tten n otice ther eof t o Land lord, a nd Lan dlord s hall no t be respon sible in an y way for fai lure t o make an y suc h repa irs until a r eas onab le time s hall have e laps ed af ter the givi ng o f such w ritt en notic e. T here are gen uine i ssues of m ater ial fact a s to whet her Ea sy Mone y breac hed it s duty un der the lease and its du ty to the Pla intiff by fa iling to g ive

4 notic e tha t eff ecte d pr emise s nee ded re pairs. Pla intiff ha s al lege d tha t eac h of t he Defe nda nt s owed h er a duty and t hat du ty was bre ache d in part by “ allow ing a lon g stan ding, dirt y, sli ppe ry and dangero us co nditi on t o exist on a walkwa y for patr ons of the sho ppi ng cente r.” Whe n the fa cts are v iewe d in a ligh t mo st fav orable t o the Pla intiff and a ll infere nces are dr awn in Plainti ff ’s fav or there remai ns a ques tion of whe ther Easy Mone y vi olate d it s duty t o Pla intif f irrespe cti ve of w here Plain tiff actua l ly fell. 8. Addit ionally, s ince I hav e con verted t his m otion into one f or sum mary judgm ent, plai ntiff mus t be g iven a r eas onabl e opp ort unity t o re spons e t o the mo tion. In this c ase that r eas onab le op port unity i s to en tit le pla intif f to take d isco very on the is sues r aise d by Eas y Mone y. Easy M one y is fr ee t o rene w its m otion a ft er plai ntiff has ha d a re asona ble o ppor tun ity to ta ke disc overy. Easy M oney’s M otion is D ENI ED. IT IS SO OR DER ED this 5th day o f March, 2026. /s/ Fra ncis J. Jo nes, J r. Franc is J. J ones, Jr., Jud ge cc: File & Serv e Xp ress