Stansbury v. Helm-Woulard and Barry Security

── Stansbury v. Helm-Woulard and Barry Security ── Court: Superior Court of Delaware Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BRENDA LEE STANSBURY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) C.A. No. N24C-06-074 CLS ROLANDA HELM-WOULARD and ) BARRY SECURITY, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Date Submitted: May 12, 2026 Date Decided: May 20, 2026 Upon Consideration of Defendant Universal Protection Service, LLC d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services Motion for Summary Judgment, GRANTED. Upon consideration of Defendant Rolanda Helm-Woulard’s Motion for Summary Judgment, GRANTED. ORDER Brenda Lee Stansbury, Pro se Plaintiff. Loreto P. Rufo, Esquire of RAWLE & HENDERSON, LLP, Attorney for Universal Protection Service, LLC, incorrectly named Barry Security. Josiah R. Wolcott, Esquire of CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP, Attorney for Defendant Rolanda Helm-Woulard. SCOTT, J.  Having considered Defendant Universal Protection Service, LLC’s (“Universal”), incorrectly named Barry Security, Motion for Summary Judgment,1 Defendant Rolanda Helm-Woulard’s (“Helm-Woulard”) Motion for Summary Judgment,2 and pro se Plaintiff Brenda Lee Stansbury’s (“Plaintiff”) Response,3 it appears to the Court that: 1. Plaintiff filed a Complaint4 pro se—i.e., as a self-represented litigant—on June 12, 2024, which was later amended on November 13, 2024.5 The Amended Complaint, though brief in its assertions, alleges that Defendants “illegally” entered her apartment “without notification.”6 2. According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff was renting Apartment 2H at Luther Tower II in Wilmington, Delaware at the time of the alleged incident. 7 During her tenancy, she noticed “on several occasions,” that various “items [were] removed from her apartment.”8 3. On January 13, 2025, Universal filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim for trespass.9 Plaintiff, consistent with the Briefing Schedule, filed a 1 Def. Universal Protection Serv., LLC’s Mot. for Summ. J., D.I. 35. 2 Def. Rolanda Helm-Woulard’s Mot. for Summ. J., D.I. 37; Universal and Helm-Woulard are collectively referred to as “Defendants” throughout this Order when appropriate. 3 Pro se Pl. Brenda Lee Stansbury’s Resp. to Defs.’ Mots. for Summ. J., D.I. 39. 4 See generally Compl., D.I. 1. 5 See generally Am. Compl., D.I. 4. 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Def. Universal Protection Serv., LLC’s Mot. to Dismiss, D.I. 20. Response to the Motion to Dismiss on February 21, 2025.10 The Court issued an Order on March 26, 2025, denying Universal’s Motion to Dismiss.11 4. Plaintiff issued a Letter to the Court on April 22, 2025, asking the Court to amend the Amended Complaint.12 Defendants filed Answers to the Amended Complaint and discovery began. 5. Universal served on Plaintiff interrogatories and requests for production on July 28, 2025, via hand delivery.13 On September 12, 2025, Universal sent Plaintiff a letter regarding outstanding discovery requests, and asked Plaintiff to complete and return the requests as soon as possible.14 On October 29, 2025, Helm-Woulard served on Plaintiff interrogatories and requests for production via first class mail.15 6. By November 2, 2025, Plaintiff had not responded to Universal’s written discovery requests, so Universal filed a Motion to Compel.16 7. On November 3, 2026, Universal filed a Notice of Deposition to take Plaintiff’s deposition on December 1, 2025 at 2:00 PM, which was mailed and hand- 10 Briefing Schedule, D.I. 21; Pro se Pl.’s Resp. to Def. Universal Protection Serv., LLC’s Mot. to Dis