Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

TekTree, LLC v. Borla Performance Industries, Inc.

Court of Common Pleas of Delaware, New Castle

October 2, 2013

TEKTREE, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
BORLA PERFORMANCE INDUSTRIES, INC., and RONGYU XIA, individually Defendants.

Submitted: September 26, 2013

Stokes Nolte, Esq. Reilly, Janiczek & McDevitt Delle, Donne Corporate Center, Attorney for Plaintiff.

Scott G. Wilcox, Esq., Whiteford, Taylor, and Preston Renaissance Center, Attorney for Defendant Borla Performance Industries, Inc., Kelly A. Green, Esq. Smith, Katzenstein, & Jenkins, Attorney for Defendant Rongyu Xia.

ORDER ON BORLA PERFORMANCE INDUSTRIES, INC.'S MOTION FOR REARGUMENT

ALEX SMALLS, CHIEF JUDGE.

Defendant Borla Performance Industries, Inc. ("Borla") brings this Motion for Reargument, pursuant to Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 59(e). Borla seeks to reargue this Court's Order of September 16, 2013, denying summary judgment on the breach of contract claim brought by Plaintiff TekTree, LLC ("TekTree"). This is the Court's Final Decision and Order.

Procedural History

On July 15, 2013, Borla filed two motions for summary judgment. In the first motion, Borla sought summary judgment on TekTree's breach of contract claim; in the second motion, Borla requested summary judgment on its breach of contract counterclaim against TekTree.

On September 16, 2013, the Court entered an Order on both motions. The Court granted Borla's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim, but denied its motion for summary judgment on TekTree's breach of contract claim. The Court reasoned:

In sum, the present record does not reflect that Borla took adequate steps to ensure that its employees did not violate the Agreement. An issue of material fact exists as to whether Borla breached the Agreement by failing to assure that Xia did not violate the Non-Solicitation Provision. A more thorough inquiry into the facts is needed to clarify the application of the law in this case. Accordingly, Borla's first motion for summary judgment must fail.[1]

On September 26, 2013, Borla filed the present Motion for Reargument. Borla argues that it fulfilled its contractual obligations "by taking steps to make certain that its employee, Ms. Xia, did not violate the terms of the Non-Solicitation Provision." Borla identifies these "steps" as advising Ms. Xia that if she violated the Non-Solicitation Provision, both she and Borla could be held liable for breach of contract. Thus, Borla concludes, "the evidence identified by the Court as lacking was in the record and justifies the grant of summary judgment."[2]

To date, TekTree has not filed a response to Borla's Motion for Reargument.

Discussion

Motions for Reargument are governed by Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 59(e), which provides:

A motion for reargument shall be served and filed within 5 days after the filing of the Court's opinion or decision. The motion shall briefly and distinctly state the grounds therefor. Within 5 days after service of such motion, the opposing party may serve and file a brief answer to each ground asserted in the motion. The ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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