Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Independence Mall, Inc. v. Wahl

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle

February 7, 2013

INDEPENDENCE MALL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. WAHL, individually, and WAHL FAMILY DENTISTRY, P.A., a Delaware Corporation as successor-in-interest to Dr. Mervin H. Wahl, P.A., Defendants.

Submitted: January 28, 2013

William J. Rhodunda, Jr., Esquire

Nicholas G. Kondraschow, Esquire

Paul E. Bilodeu, Esquire

ORDER

Fred S. Silverman, Judge

Upon Plaintiff's Application for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal - CERTIFICATION DENIED.

1. On January 28, 2013, Defendant filed an Application for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal from the January 17, 2013 order. A hard copy of the application was received in chambers on February 5, 2013.

2. This is landlord/tenant dispute. On December 31, 2012, the court denied, in part, several partial–summary judgment claims. The court denied reargument on January 17, 2013.

3. In denying summary judgment, the court reviewed the parties previous leases, including written or unwritten extensions. The court also considered the parties' actions during the time between the last lease's expiration and the breach. Considering that entire picture, the court decided that when the tenancy was finally terminated, it was year-to-year or month-to-month.

4. The way the court characterized the lease left open factual questions about the lease's termination and damages.

5. While the December 31, 2012 and January 17, 2013 orders are important and play a significant role in the case's final determination, trial issues remain. No matter how an interlocutory appeal would be decided, this litigation will continue.[1]

For the foregoing reasons, the court sees little benefit to an interlocutory appeal that leaves matters for trial and further appeal, no matter what. Accordingly, the court declines to certify an interlocutory appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.