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.

BRP HOLD OX, LLC v. Chilian

Superior Court of Delaware

January 14, 2019

BRP HOLD OX, LLC, and TDBBS, LLC, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants,
v.
WILLIAM CHILIAN, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

          Date Submitted: January 4, 2019

         On Defendant's Application for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42. DENIED.

          K. Tyler O'Connell, Esquire, Morris James LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants BRP Hold Ox, LLC and TDBBS, LLC.

          David P. Primack, Esquire, & David W. Giattino, Esquire, McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff William Chilian.

          The Honorable Calvin L. Scott, Jr., Judge.

         Background

         On 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.

         Parties' Contentions

         Chilian 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.[1] Chilian argues the Court impermissibly expanded the doctrine of Absolute Privilege.

         Chilian 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.[2]

         BRP 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 Doctrine.

         Discussion

         Delaware Supreme Court Rule 42 sets forth the criteria for certifying an interlocutory appeal.[3] 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."[4] 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 ...


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.