Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv—00465-SLR Document 18 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DENNIS E. PARKSTONE, III, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. N0. 07-485-SLR
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, g
RICHARD PRZYWARA, and NEW )
CASTLE COUNTY, )
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this 11th day of January, 2008, having reviewed defendants’
motion to dismiss and the papers filed in connection therewith;
IT IS ORDERED that said motion (D.l. 6) is granted in part and denied in part as
follows:
1. The motion is granted as it relates to dismissing defendants Coons and
Przywara in their official capacities. (g D.I. 11 at 13 n.3)
2. The motion is denied as it relates to defendants waiver argument. The
Supreme Court in Town of Newton v. Rumegg, 480 U.S. 388 (1987), did not establish a
tg E rule validating such release-dismissal agreements as the memorandum of
understanding at issue; rather, the Court only dismantled the presumption that such
agreements were invalid. It is apparent to the court that the enforceability of such
agreements, like any contracts, must be viewed under a totality of the circumstances.

Case 1:07-cv—00465-SLR Document 18 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 2 of 2
The circumstances under which the memorandum of understanding at issue was
executed, when viewed consistent with plaintiff’s allegations, raise sufficient questions
of fact as to whether said agreement is enforceable to withstand a motion to dismiss.
3. The motion also is denied as it relates to plaintiffs invasion of privacy claim,
consistent with p|aintiff’s allegations of wanton negligence or willful and malicious intent.
g Farris v. I\/loeckel, 664 F. Supp. 881 (D. Del. 1987).
United States Dgtrict Judge
2