Gupta v. Citizens Bank

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LACHHMAN DASS GUPTA and § MANJULA GUPTA, § No. 395, 2017 § Defendants Below, § Court Below: Superior Court Appellants, § of the State of Delaware § v. § C.A. No. SK02J-05-068 § CITIZENS BANK, Successor to § MELLON BANK (DE) NATIONAL § ASSOCIATION, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. § Submitted: April 13, 2018 Decided: June 28, 2018 Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.

ORDER (1) Lachhman Dass Gupta (“Mr. Gupta”) has appealed a Superior Court order denying his request for review of a Commissioner’s orders that denied his motion to compel and motion to set aside judgment.1 Mr. Gupta filed his motions in May 2017 in a debt action that was brought 15 years ago by Citizens Bank against Mr. Gupta and his wife Manjula Gupta. Citizens Bank prevailed in the debt action in 2003 and also in the Supreme Court appeal, which concluded in 2004.2 (2) Mr. Gupta’s motions, the bank’s responses, and Mr. Gupta’s replies were referred to a Commissioner. The Commissioner held a hearing on August 3, 2017. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commissioner denied the motions from the bench and in written orders dated August 3, 2017.

When ruling from the bench, the Commissioner addressed Mr. Gupta, stating, “I have seen no evidence presented to me in any of your filings, anything that you’ve stated that would indicate to me that the bank has done anything fraudulent in this matter, and the matter is closed. The matter was litigated.

The matter is done.”3 (3) On August 11, 2017, Mr. Gupta appealed the Commissioner’s August 3 orders to the Superior Court. The bank filed a response. By order dated September 14, 2017, a Superior Court Judge construed the appeal as a request for reconsideration of the Commissioner’s orders and denied reconsideration after reviewing the record de novo. This appeal followed.

(4) An issue not raised on appeal but considered by the Court concerns the standard of review the Judge used when reviewing the Commissioner’s orders. As outlined in Superior Court Civil Rule 132, the degree of deference given to a Commissioner’s order is determined by whether the order is case dispositive or non-case dispositive.4 Under Rule 132(a)(3)(iv), a non-case-dispositive order is subject to a deferential standard of review. Rule 132(a)(4) requires de novo review of a case dispositive order.

(5) In this case, the Superior Court’s September 14 order does not indicate whether the Judge viewed the Commissioner’s August 3 orders as case dispositive, non-case dispositive, or a mixture of both. The order does state, however, that the Judge reviewed the record de novo. Therefore, we are satisfied that the case- dispositive aspects of the Commissioner’s orders— namely, the August 3 order denying the motion to set aside a judgment5— received the appropriate non-deferential standard of review, and we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr. Justice