Gunn v. Ambac Assurance, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY LA MAR GUNN, Plaintiff, v. AMBAC ASSURANCE, EQCC HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 1998-2, EQCC HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 1998-3, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No.: 11C-11-128 FSS E-FILED ORDER Upon pro se, Plaintiff s Emergency Motion to Hold Opposing Counsel in Contempt, For Compensatory and Coercive Sanctions, and For Ejectment DISMISSED. Upon Plaintiff s Emergency Motion for Recusal of Judge - DISMISSED. 1. This case stems from an earlier mortgage foreclosure.1 The secured property s former owner has sued, alleging Defendants obtained the foreclosure by fraud. 2. Plaintiff has filed serial motions calling for expedited consideration. The first motion, as its caption implies, seeks assorted relief ranging 1 Gunn v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass n, 998 A.2d 850 (Del. 2010) (TABLE). from punitive sanctions to ejectment. Because Plaintiff verified the motion, he demands a verified response. He cites an inapplicable statute. The motion is out of order in several ways. Mostly, it is frivolous and vexatious. 3. Two days after the first motion, Plaintiff filed the second. The second motion alleges personal bias, narcissism, and assorted professional and criminal misconduct. The accusations reflect Plaintiff s disappointment and bitterness over the foreclosure s outcome. The court, however, has no personal interest in this case s outcome and Plaintiff s personal accusations are beside the point. 4. The court will allow this litigation to continue, provided Plaintiff proceeds in an orderly fashion, consistent with the court s rules. The court will not use its limited resources addressing extraordinary and homespun requests for ad hoc hearings or other relief. 5. If Plaintiff files another motion like this one, the court will consider revoking his in forma pauperis status. If that happens and more filings like this one are submitted, the court may require Plaintiff to obtain counsel under pain of dismissal.2 2 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 41(e) ( The Court may order an action dismissed . . . for failure of a party . . . to comply with any rule, statute, or order of the Court, or for any other reason deemed by the Court to be appropriate. ). 2 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff s January 3 and 5, 2012, Emergency motions are DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: January 6, 2012 /s/ Fred S. Silverman Judge oc: Prothonotary (Civil) cc: La Mar Gunn, Plaintiff, pro se, via U.S. Mail Jill Agro, Esquire 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
