Mikkilineni, Maheswar v. Paypal, Inc., Godaddy.com, LLC, Shijil TS, CEO, and President, Harvard University and Architect Partner

2026-08-19

Summary · law.co

Holding. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of Mikkilineni's motion to set aside the dismissal under Rule 60(b)(6), finding no abuse of discretion and no evidence of fraud on the court. The Court also denied PayPal's request for attorney's fees and costs.

Maheswar Mikkilineni sued multiple companies and organizations, claiming they obstructed his efforts to build a website promoting his scientific and religious views. After the federal court dismissed claims against Harvard's Chandra X-Ray Center on sovereign immunity grounds and the state Superior Court dismissed claims against PayPal, GoDaddy, and Upwork, only the Indian company Spark remained as a defendant. When Mikkilineni failed to diligently prosecute the case against Spark, the Superior Court dismissed the remaining claims under procedural rules. Rather than appeal that dismissal, Mikkilineni later sought to overturn the judgment by motion, arguing the dismissal constituted fraud on the court. The Superior Court rejected this request, and Mikkilineni appealed the denial of his motion to vacate.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a Rule 60(b)(6) motion can be used to challenge an underlying judgment that should have been appealed directly
Whether dismissal for failure to diligently prosecute constitutes fraud on the court
Standard of review for denials of Rule 60(b) motions

Procedural posture

Mikkilineni appealed the Superior Court's denial of his motion to vacate a judgment dismissing his claims for lack of diligent prosecution, having failed to appeal the dismissal itself within the applicable timeframe.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MAHESWAR MIKKILINENI, §

§ No. 484, 2025

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

v. §

§ C.A. No. N20C-10-135

PAYPAL, INC.; SHIJIL TS, §

CEO; GODADDY.COM, LLC; §

HARVARD COLLEGE §

OBSERVATORY, and §

UPWORK INC., §

Defendants Below, §

Appellees. §

Submitted: June 19, 2026

Decided: August 19, 2026

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

ORDER

After consideration of the parties’ briefs, the Superior Court record, and the

motion for attorney’s fees and costs, it appears to the Court that:

(1) In 2019, the appellant, Maheswar Mikkilineni, filed suit in the Superior

Court against the appellees—PayPal, Inc.; Shijil TS/SparkSupport Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

(“Spark”); GoDaddy.com, LLC; the Chandra X-Ray Center of the Harvard

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and its director (together, “CXC”); and

Upwork, Inc.—alleging that they had stymied “his attempts to host, encode, and grow a website designed to commercialize his scientific and religious views about

the atomic underpinnings of the universe.”1

(2) CXC removed the case to Delaware’s federal district court, which

dismissed Mikkilineni’s claims against CXC on the basis of sovereign immunity and

then remanded the case to the Superior Court.2 On July 1, 2021, the Superior Court

granted PayPal’s, GoDaddy’s, and Upwork’s motions to dismiss,3 leaving Spark, an

India-based entity, the remaining defendant. On September 30, 2025, the Superior

Court dismissed the remainder of Mikkilineni’s complaint under Superior Court

Civil Rule 41(e) for Mikkilineni’s failure to diligently prosecute the case against

Spark. Mikkilineni did not appeal.

(3) Instead, on November 3, 2025, Mikkilineni moved to set aside the

court’s judgment under Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b)(6), alleging that the court’s

“dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(e) must be a fraud upon the court.” The

Superior Court denied the motion, finding that Mikkilineni’s motion had failed to

Mikkilineni v. PayPal, Inc., 2021 WL 2763903, at *1 (Del Super. Ct. July 1, 2021) (“Mikkilineni I”).

Mikkilineni v. PayPal, Inc., 2021 WL 810359, at *1 (D. Del. Mar. 3, 2021). Mikkilineni then attempted to substitute the Harvard College Observatory (“HCO”) for CXC by way of an amended complaint. But see Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15(a) (permitting an amendment without leave of court only when a responsive pleading has not yet been served). In any event, Mikkilineni’s allegations against HCO, which indirectly controls CXC, were identical to the allegations that Mikkilineni made against CXC and failed for the same reasons.

Mikkilineni I, at *13.

demonstrate that relief was warranted under Rule 60(b)(6)’s exacting standards. This

appeal followed.

(4) We review a Superior Court order denying a motion to vacate under

Rule 60(b) for an abuse of discretion.4 “An abuse of discretion occurs when a court

has exceeded the bounds of reason in view of the circumstances or so ignored

recognized rules of law or practice so as to produce injustice.”5

(5) In his opening brief on appeal, Mikkilineni alleges that the Superior

Court erred when it dismissed his claims against PayPal, GoDaddy, and Upwork in

July 2021 and when it dismissed his claims against Spark in September 2025. But

Mikkilineni did not appeal the Superior Court’s September 30, 2025 final order. And

on appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, Mikkilineni

“may only attack the propriety of that order; Rule 60(b) does not permit the appellant

to attack the underlying judgment for an error that he could have complained of on

appeal from it.”6 Mikkilineni does not maintain that the Superior Court abused its

discretion when it denied his request for relief under Rule 60(b)(6), and we find it

evident from the record that the Superior Court’s actions in this case did not

constitute “fraud upon the court” or otherwise justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

Wilson v. Montague, 2011 WL 1661561, at *2 (Del. May 3, 2011).

MCA, Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 785 A.2d 625, 633-34 (Del. 2001) (cleaned up). 6

Wilson, 2011 WL 1661561, at *2 (cleaned up).

(6) PayPal has moved for attorney’s fees and costs under Supreme Court

Rule 20(f). After careful review, we decline PayPal’s invitation to award fees and

costs here.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the

Superior Court is AFFIRMED. The motion for attorney’s fees and costs is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths

Justice