FOR THE DISTRIC T OF DELAWARE JEFFREY GABBAY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 20-743-JLH ) BERNARD G. CONAWAY, ESQUIRE and ) CONAWAY-LEGAL LLC, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER At Wilmington this 3rd day of September, 2025; WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Fallon issued a Report and Recommendation on March 27, 2025 (D.I. 91), recommending that the Court GRANT-IN-PART and DENY-IN-PART Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 75); WHEREAS, on April 10, 2025, Defendants filed a “Limited Objection to the March 27, 2025, Report and Recommendation” (D.I. 93), which argues that that Magistrate Judge Fallon erred in her recommendation that “[t]he court should not dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendant, Bernard Conaway” (D.I. 91 at 10); WHEREAS, Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ limited objection (D.I. 94); WHEREAS, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo, see

(b)(1); WHEREAS, although the parties’ briefing on this issue is wildly confusing, what is clear is that the real dispute is about whether Bernard Conaway should remain as a defendant in the case; WHEREAS, although Defendants are correct that, under Delaware law, a member of an LLC is generally not liable for obligations of the LLC solely by reason of his membership in the see, e.g., Weber v. U.S. Sterling Sec., Inc.,

(2007) (applying Delaware law); cf Gassis v. Corkery, No. 8868-VCG,

, at *5 (Del. Ch. July 21, 2014), aff'd,

(Del. 2015); and, therefore, I agree with Judge Fallon that “[t]he court should not dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendant, Bernard Conaway” (D.I. 91 at 10); NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ objections (D.I. 93) are OVERRULED, the Report and Recommendation (D.I. 91) is ADOPTED, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 75) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART, as set forth in the Report and Recommendation.

UNITE ES DISTRICT JUDGE