BRP HOLD OX, LLC, and TDBBS, LLC, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants,
WILLIAM CHILIAN, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.
Submitted: January 4, 2019
Defendant's Application for Certification of
Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42.
Tyler O'Connell, Esquire, Morris James LLP, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants BRP Hold Ox, LLC and
P. Primack, Esquire, & David W. Giattino, Esquire,
McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, Attorneys for
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff William Chilian.
Honorable Calvin L. Scott, Jr., Judge.
October 31, 2018, this Court entered an Order granting BRP
HOLD OX, LLC, and TDBBS, LLC's, (hereinafter
"BRP") Motion to Dismiss Defendant William
Chilian's Counterclaims. Chilian filed a Motion for
Reargument and for Leave to File an Amended Pleading on
November 8, 2018. By Order dated December 6, 2018, those
Motions were denied. Chilian filed an Application for
Certification of an Interlocutory Appeal on December 17,
2018, and BRP responded on January 4, 2019. Chilian's
Motion for Reargument and this Application address only the
Counterclaim for Tortious Interference.
contends certification of his appeal is appropriate because
this Court's decision conflicts with the Court of
Chancery's decision in Soterion Corp v. Soteria
Mezzanine Corp. Chilian argues the Court impermissibly
expanded the doctrine of Absolute Privilege.
further argues that because he has suffered "severe
emotional, physical, and financial harm" the interests
of justice require providing him an opportunity to present
his Tortious Interference claim.
contends the Court's decision does not constitute a
disagreement about applicable legal standards, necessary for
certification. BRP further argues there is no disagreement
between the Courts as the Court of Chancery was not called
upon to determine the applicability of the Absolute Privilege
Supreme Court Rule 42 sets forth the criteria for certifying
an interlocutory appeal. The rule states that "[n]o
interlocutory appeal will be certified by the trial court or
accepted by this Court unless the order of the trial court
decides a substantial issue of material importance that
merits appellate review before a final
judgment." Further, "[i]nterlocutory appeals
should be exceptional, not routine, because they disrupt the
normal procession of litigation, cause delay, and can
threaten to exhaust scarce party and ...