Next Gen Nutrition Investment Partners, LLC v. Garson

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

NEXT GEN NUTRITION §
INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC, §
§ No. 460, 2024
Garnishee Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ C.A. No.: N23C-05-143
CHARLES GARSON, §
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §

Submitted: May 7, 2025
Decided: June 5, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

This appeal arises out of a default judgment entered against a garnishee for

the full amount of a judgment obtained by Plaintiff-Below, Appellee Charles

Garson. When Defendant-Below Hart Dairy Creamery Corp., Inc. (“Hart Dairy”)

refused to pay the judgment, Garson served a writ of attachment fi fa on Appellant

Next Gen Nutrition Investment Partners, LLC (“Next Gen”) based on Garson’s

belief that Next Gen was a Hart Dairy stockholder. Next Gen ignored the writ of

attachment and failed to respond to Garson’s motion to show cause. The Superior

Court entered judgment against Next Gen when it failed to appear at the hearing on

the show-cause motion. The court denied Next Gen’s motion to set aside the order
for judgment, holding that Next Gen failed to meet the standard for such relief under

Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b)(6).

Next Gen now appeals the Superior Court’s denial of its Motion to Set Aside

Judgment. After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below,

we find it evident that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the

basis of and for the reasons stated in its October 3, 2024 Bench Ruling and its April

18, 2024 Order for Judgment Against Garnishee. NextGen maintains that it failed

to appear in the Superior Court because it “relied upon representations” made by

Hart Dairy’s CEO, Tim Connell, that “Hart Dairy would be representing Next Gen’s

interests” in this action.1 Our decision is without prejudice to any cause of action

NextGen may have against Hart Dairy.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the decision and judgment of the

Superior Court be and the same hereby are AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow
Justice

1
Appellant’s Opening Br. at 10.
2