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.

Cardona v. Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd.

Superior Court of Delaware

February 25, 2019

Eduardo Diaz Cardona, et ah, Plaintiffs,
v.
Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd., et al, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

          Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge

         This 25th day of February, 2019, upon consideration of Defendant Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd.'s[1] ("HKK") Application[2] for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal (the "Application") under Supreme Court Rule 42 ("Rule 42"), Plaintiffs' Opposition thereto[3], and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:

         1. This action arises out of an injury suffered by Plaintiff Eduardo Diaz Cardona while using a nail gun manufactured by HKK. Mr. Cardona, and his wife Wendy Cardona (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed this action against, among other defendants, HKK on September 24, 2015.[4] HKK moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.[5] On February 5, 2019, the Court issued an opinion denying HKK's motion, finding that the Court has jurisdiction over HKK.[6] HKK now seeks to certify an interlocutory appeal of the Court's February 5, 2019 decision.

         2. "Interlocutory appeals should be exceptional, not routine."[7] The Court may certify an interlocutory appeal under Rule 42 only when the order to be certified decides "a substantial issue of material importance."[8] In determining whether to certify an interlocutory appeal, the Court considers whether:

(A) The interlocutory order involves a question of law resolved for the first time in this State;
(B) The decisions of the trial courts are conflicting upon the question of law;
(C) The question of law relates to the constitutionality, construction, or application of a statute of this State, which has not been, but should be, settled by this Court in advance of an appeal from a final order;
(D) The interlocutory order has sustained the controverted jurisdiction of the trial court;
(E) The interlocutory order has reversed or set aside a prior decision of the trial court, a jury, or an administrative agency from which an appeal was taken to the trial court which had decided a significant issue and a review of the interlocutory order may terminate the litigation, substantially reduce further litigation, or otherwise serve considerations of justice;
(F) The interlocutory order has vacated or opened a judgment of the trial court;
(G) Review of the interlocutory order may terminate the litigation; or
(H) Review of the interlocutory order may serve considerations of justice.[9]

         The Court will also consider "its own assessment of the most efficient and just schedule to resolve the case," and identify "whether and why the likely benefits of interlocutory review outweigh the probable costs, such that interlocutory review is in the interests of justice."[10]

         3. HKK maintains that this Application meets the criteria set forth in Rules 42(b)(i) and 42(b)(iii)(C) and (D). The Court agrees that the February 5, 2019 decision sustained controverted jurisdiction. Although the decision was made based on existing Delaware precedents, the Court acknowledged that the "dual jurisdiction" doctrine, [11] which was established from the Delaware long-arm statute, 10 Del. C. §3104(c)(1) and (4), is not without criticism.[12] Hence, the interlocutory order arguably involves a question of law relating to the "constitutionality, construction, or application" of a statute. However, the issue of ...


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.