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.

Quantlab Group GP, LLC v. Eames

Court of Chancery of Delaware

November 2, 2018

Quantlab Group GP, LLC, et al.
v.
Eames, et al.

          Date Submitted: October 1, 2018

          John L. Reed, Esquire Ethan H. Townsend, Esquire DLA Piper LLP

          Thad J. Bracegirdle, Esquire Scott B. Czerwonka, Esquire Wilks, Lukoff & Bracegirdle, LLC

          William D. Johnston, Esquire Tammy L. Mercer, Esquire Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP

         Dear Counsel:

         Defendants have moved for reargument under Court of Chancery Rule 59(f) (the "Motion") following the Court's September 18, 2018, bench ruling (the "Ruling") in which I denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Stay. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied.

         This case is the latest chapter in the parties' ongoing dispute regarding the de jure management of Quantlab Group, LP ("Quantlab Group), a Delaware limited partnership.[1] I laid out the basic factual background of the dispute at some length in a previous decision, so I will not repeat that background here.[2]

         "A motion for reargument under Court of Chancery Rule 59(f) will be denied unless the court has overlooked a controlling decision or principle of law that would have controlling effect, or the court has misapprehended the law or the facts so that the outcome of the decision would be different."[3] Reargument motions may not be used to relitigate matters already fully litigated or to present arguments or evidence that could have been presented before the court entered the order from which reargument is sought.[4] In other words, a motion for reargument may not rehash old arguments or invent new ones.[5]

         When the decision that is the subject of reargument rests on the court's exercise of its discretion, such as a decision to grant or deny a stay of Delaware litigation, [6] "no fact or legal precedent may 'compel' a different result absent a showing of abuse of discretion."[7] Here, Defendants do not argue that I have abused my discretion. Instead, after presenting comprehensive data on the educational background of judicial officers in Harris County, the resume of the Judge presiding over the Texas Action (in favor of which Defendants would have me stay this case), the size of the Texas economy and the GDP and census results in Harris County, Defendants argue that I erred in concluding that the Texas court was incapable of providing complete justice under McWane. Of course, my finding in that regard had absolutely nothing to do with the competence of the presiding judge in Texas or the fitness of the Harris County court system.[8] Rather, I determined that certain of the issues raised in this action raised important questions regarding the internal affairs and governance of a Delaware entity that: (1) Defendants had previously indicated were not at issue in the Texas action; and (2) in any event, ought to be decided by a Delaware court.

         The dispositive McWane factor that drove my decision on the motion to dismiss or stay was whether the two actions involved the same parties and the same issues. Defendants acknowledge that Quantlab Group is not a party in the Texas Action, [9] and that it is, at least nominally, a party (in my view a necessary party) in this action.[10] As noted, Quantlab Group is a Delaware entity. Its limited partnership agreement contains a clear Delaware choice of law provision. The claims for declaratory relief Plaintiffs have brought here will require that I interpret this Delaware entity's limited partnership agreement under Delaware law in order to adjudicate a claim arising under Delaware statutes. To put it simply, this dispute belongs in Delaware.[11]

         For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

         Very truly yours,

          Joseph R. ...


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.