Pope v. Hycroft Mining Holding Corp., C.A. No. 2022-0957-LWW (Del. Ch. July 9, 2024)
In this decision, the Court of Chancery found the plaintiffs could not press class claims if they also pursue related individual claims. The Court also found that class and derivative claims cannot be litigated pro se.
Here, one of the plaintiffs brought two suits arising under the same facts: an individual action and also a putative class action. The Court found a risk of conflict because the plaintiff’s interest in prosecuting his individual action was more direct and personal than his interest in pursuing claims on behalf of a putative class. Additionally, the individual claim, if successful, would yield a larger recovery. The Court held that the plaintiff had to choose one of the suits, because to continue with both would be inconsistent with his obligations to the putative class. Additionally, the Court stated that Rule 23’s adequacy requirement prevented pro se litigants from serving as class representatives. Accordingly, two other pro se plaintiffs who purported to bring class claims were not allowed to proceed. One of them also asserted a derivative claim. The Court explained that under the plain language of Rule 23, a derivative claim could not be litigated pro se either. The Court allowed the plaintiff to obtain counsel within 20 days to pursue the claim, otherwise it would be dismissed.
