A Delaware court has ruled in favor of a security company and its employee in a trespass case, granting summary judgment and dismissing the case due to the plaintiff's failure to prosecute. The ruling affects Brenda Lee Stansbury, who alleged that the defendants entered her apartment without permission. The decision highlights the importance of adhering to court procedures and responding to legal requests.
The case, Stansbury v. Helm-Woulard and Barry Security, was filed on May 20, 2026, in the Superior Court of Delaware under docket number N24C-06-074 CLS. Brenda Lee Stansbury, representing herself, claimed that Rolanda Helm-Woulard and Universal Protection Service, LLC, incorrectly named Barry Security, had trespassed into her apartment located in Wilmington, Delaware. Stansbury's allegations included that various items were removed from her apartment during her tenancy.
The dispute began when Stansbury filed her initial complaint on June 12, 2024, which she later amended in November 2024. The defendants responded with motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, arguing that Stansbury failed to provide evidence to support her claims. The court had previously denied the motion to dismiss but later found that Stansbury did not follow through with the necessary legal procedures.
In its ruling, the court stated, "The burden of proof on a motion for summary judgment...falls on the moving party to demonstrate that 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" The court found that Stansbury had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claims of trespass and that her failure to respond to discovery requests and court orders warranted the dismissal of her case.
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr. presided over the case and noted that Stansbury's lack of participation and failure to comply with court orders constituted a history of dilatoriness. The court emphasized that while it recognizes the challenges faced by pro se litigants, the responsibility to diligently pursue a case lies with the plaintiff. The ruling stated, "The duty to diligently prosecute...falls upon the plaintiff, not the court."
The court's decision to grant summary judgment means that both Universal Protection Service and Helm-Woulard are not liable for the claims made by Stansbury. The ruling also reflects the court's stance on the importance of adhering to procedural rules in legal proceedings. The court's decision to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute indicates that it will not tolerate inaction from plaintiffs, even if they are representing themselves.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond this case. It serves as a reminder to all litigants about the importance of responding to court orders and participating actively in their cases. The court's decision underscores the need for plaintiffs to be diligent in pursuing their claims to avoid dismissal.
Moving forward, Stansbury has limited options for appeal, as the court has already ruled on the merits of the case. The dismissal for failure to prosecute may also hinder her ability to pursue similar claims in the future. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or potential appeals.