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.

Kolokotrones v. Ninja Metrics, Inc.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

December 18, 2017

Kolokotrones
v.
Ninja Metrics, Inc.

          Submitted: November 13, 2017

          Megan Ward Cascio, Esquire Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

          Thad J. Bracegirdle, Esquire Wilks, Lukoff & Bracegirdle, LLC

          Dear Counsel:

         I have reviewed the parties' submissions with respect to Defendant's motion to dismiss. After carefully considering the matter, I have determined that a hearing on the motion will not be necessary. The motion to dismiss is denied, the motion for reargument on Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied and I will today enter an order implementing the October 11, 2016, bench ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

         Plaintiff, Mark Kolokotrones, filed his Verified Complaint on June 3, 2016, in which he sought a declaration under 8 Del. C. § 145(c) that he was entitled to advancement of his legal fees from Defendant, Ninja Metrics, Inc., in connection with his defense of a cross-claim in an action pending in California, and "fees on fees" in connection with his prosecution of this advancement action.[1] On July 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. I heard that motion on August 3, 2016.[2] The parties requested, if possible, that I render my decision in advance of formal settlement discussions that were to occur with regard to the California action. To accommodate that request, I delivered my decision on Plaintiff's motion for judgment in a bench ruling on October 11, 2016.[3] In that ruling, I granted Plaintiff's motion and awarded him advancement of his litigation expenses as well as "fees on fees."[4] I directed the parties to confer and submit an implementing order.[5]

          No such order was submitted.[6] Instead, I received Defendant's motion for reargument on October 18, 2016, which Plaintiff opposed by brief filed on October 20, 2016.[7] Four days later, on October 24, 2016, before I could deliver my decision on the motion for reargument, I received notice of Defendant's filing for bankruptcy and a corresponding stay of this matter pending the resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings.[8]

         Status reports supplied by the parties in August of this year, upon my request, informed me that the bankruptcy was still pending and that Defendant had voluntarily dismissed its cross-claim in the California proceedings.[9] On October 13, 2017, I received notification from Plaintiff's counsel that the bankruptcy court granted relief from the automatic stay so that Plaintiff could "prosecute, to final judgment or other final resolution" the proceedings in this Court.[10] On October 25, 2017, Defendant filed its motion to dismiss this matter on grounds of mootness.[11]

         To bring about a "final resolution" of this matter, as contemplated by the bankruptcy court in granting relief from the stay, I first address Defendant's still outstanding motion for reargument. That motion is denied. I was on the verge of denying the motion at the time Defendant filed its notice of bankruptcy. The arguments in the motion for reargument simply rehash those made in opposition to the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and those arguments were addressed in my October 11 bench ruling.[12] Defendant has failed to demonstrate that I misapprehended a material fact or misapplied the law and, therefore, has not justified relief under Rule 59(f).[13]

         With that outstanding motion resolved, I turn next to Defendant's motion to dismiss. That motion is also denied. In the motion to dismiss, Defendant argues that this matter is moot because the underlying claim that gave rise to any advancement right has since been dismissed, and any claim for fees that were incurred in defense of that action must now be brought as an indemnification claim in the bankruptcy court. Plaintiff's argument, however, ignores two important facts: First (and foremost), this matter was fully and finally decided on October 11, 2016, with my rendering of a ruling granting Plaintiff's motion for judgment.[14] The only act required to implement that order was the ministerial act of actually entering an implementing order. Defendant's attempt to exploit his procedural machinations as a means to prevent Plaintiff from receiving the benefit of the victory he earned on October 11 finds no support in the law or in equity.[15] Second, Plaintiff also earned "fees on fees" in connection with his prosecution of his advancement right. The dismissal of the California cross-claim cannot, under any view of the world, moot that claim.

         I can see no basis to allow Defendant to avoid a final determination of this matter, and permit it to relitigate issues that the parties have fully litigated and I have already decided, simply because the Court did not have time to enter an implementing order before a stay of the litigation was entered. Based on the foregoing, I deny both the motion for reargument and the motion to dismiss. An order implementing the final decision in this matter, as provided in my bench ruling on October 11, 2016, is attached to this letter and will be entered on the docket today.

         Very truly yours,

          Joseph ...


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.