State v. The Mazen Shahin & Nina Shahin Revocable Living Tr. Agreement, C. A. K21C-06-001 JJC

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware
Writing for the CourtJeffrey J Clark Resident Judge
PartiesSTATE OF DELAWARE, upon The Relation of the Secretary of the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff, v. THE MAZEN SHAHIN AND NINA SHAHIN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT OF MARCH 2, 2002; MAZEN SHAHIN and NINA SHAHIN, husband and wife; RAMY SHAHIN and RANDA SHAHIN, CO-TRUSTEES UNDER THE MAZEN SHAHIN and NINA SHAHIN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT OF MARCH 2, 2002; 0.0139 ACRE OF LAND, more or less, as a Fee Simple Taking, situate in East Dover, Kent County, Delaware; and 0.0189 ACRE OF LAND, more or less, as a Temporary Construction Easement Taking, situate in East Dover, Kent County, Delaware, Defendants.
Docket NumberC. A. K21C-06-001 JJC
Decision Date18 November 2022

STATE OF DELAWARE, upon The Relation of the Secretary of the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff,
v.

THE MAZEN SHAHIN AND NINA SHAHIN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT OF MARCH 2, 2002; MAZEN SHAHIN and NINA SHAHIN, husband and wife; RAMY SHAHIN and RANDA SHAHIN, CO-TRUSTEES UNDER THE MAZEN SHAHIN and NINA SHAHIN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT OF MARCH 2, 2002; 0.0139 ACRE OF LAND, more or less, as a Fee Simple Taking, situate in East Dover, Kent County, Delaware; and 0.0189 ACRE OF LAND, more or less, as a Temporary Construction Easement Taking, situate in East Dover, Kent County, Delaware, Defendants.

C. A. No. K21C-06-001 JJC

Superior Court of Delaware

November 18, 2022


Defendants Mazen Shahin and Nina Shahin

ORDER

Jeffrey J Clark Resident Judge

On November 18, 2022, after a rule to show cause hearing held yesterday to address potential sanctions pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 17(c)(1)(B), the Court ORDERS the following:

1

1. For the reasons explained on the record at the hearing on November 17, 2022, Defendants' request that the Court recuse itself, based upon alleged bias and prejudice, is DENIED. The Court denies Defendants' motion after performing the analysis required by the Delaware Supreme Court's decision in Los v. Los, 595 A.2d 381 (Del. 1991).

2. Defendants' (1) "Objection to the attorney, Gregory B. Williams' withdrawal from the case," (2) "Motion-Demand for Official Plaintiff's Clarification," and (3) "Motion-Demand . . . for investigation of this case of fraudulent claims of condemnation" violate Superior Court Civil Rule 11(b)(1) through (3). At the hearing, the Court described Defendants' conduct, examined the nature of their filings, and explained why they violated Rule 11. The three listed violations follow a previous Court Order, issued on August 24, 2022, that memorialized Defendants' previous violations of Rule 11(b).[1] Those previous filings violated Rule 11(b)(1) - (4).[2] Given that background, the Court then cautioned Defendants that if they engaged in like future conduct, a rule to show cause hearing regarding Rule 11(c) sanctions would follow.[3]

3. After the Court's Order, Defendants filed similar pleadings. The Court then scheduled a hearing to provide the Defendants the opportunity to be heard on the issue. For the reasons explained on the record at the hearing, Defendants will be sanctioned for the three violations identified in paragraph 2 that occurred after the Court's...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT