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.

Neurvana Medical, LLC v. Balt USA, LLC

Court of Chancery of Delaware

October 10, 2019

Neurvana Medical, LLC
v.
Balt USA, LLC,

          Jason A. Cincilla, Esquire Amaryah K. Bocchino, Esquire Ryan W. Browning, Esquire Tye C. Bell, Esquire Manning Gross Massenburg LLP

          Lori W. Will, Esquire Daniyal M. Iqbal, Esquire Jeremy W. Gagas, Esquire Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.

          Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick Judge.

         Dear Counsel:

         Plaintiff has moved for reargument under Court of Chancery Rule 59(f) concerning this Court's September 18, 2019 Memorandum Opinion (the "Opinion"), which dismissed Balt International, S.A.S. from this action for lack of personal jurisdiction.[1] Specifically, Plaintiff argues that this Court "erred in not considering Plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery."[2] For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion for reargument is DENIED.

         "The Court will deny a motion for reargument 'unless the Court has overlooked a decision or principle of law that would have a controlling effect or the Court has misapprehended the law or the facts so that the outcome of the decision would be affected.'"[3] "Rule 59 relief is available to prevent injustice and will be granted only when the moving party demonstrates that the court's decision 'rested on a misunderstanding of a material fact or a misapplication of law.'"[4] If a motion for reargument "merely rehashes arguments already made by the parties and considered by the Court" in rendering the decision for which reargument is sought, the motion must be denied.[5] It is appropriate to deny a motion for reargument where the explicit language in the Court's challenged decision implicitly rejects an argument offered or request made by the movant.[6] On a motion for reargument, the movant bears a heavy burden.[7]

         Plaintiff argues that this Court "erred in not considering Plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery."[8] Plaintiff asserts that "[g]ranting jurisdictional discovery is appropriate when a plaintiff provides non-frivolous grounds for jurisdiction"[9] and that the Complaint in this case "pleaded many facts that provide a plausible basis for jurisdictional discovery."[10]

         Plaintiff's motion fails primarily because the Opinion did not overlook or misapprehend anything. Rather, the Opinion implicitly considered and denied Plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery. "Before ordering personal jurisdiction discovery there must be at least 'some indication that this particular defendant is amenable to suit in this forum.'"[11] There is no such indication here. Plaintiff failed to allege a non-frivolous basis for jurisdiction under the "closely-related" test for the reasons set forth in the Opinion.[12] In rejecting Plaintiff's legal theory under the closely-related test, the Opinion noted that Plaintiff had failed to allege facts supporting jurisdiction under that theory.[13] Plaintiff's agency jurisdiction argument, too, failed to supply a non-frivolous basis for asserting jurisdiction. As this Court explained, the agency theory of jurisdiction involves "a factual inquiry" into three established elements.[14] Plaintiff failed to allege facts touching on any one-let alone all-of these elements. As this Court noted, Plaintiff altogether "fail[ed] to identify any sort of meaningful nexus between [Balt USA and Balt International]."[15] Given the dearth of factual allegations, Plaintiff is not permitted to use jurisdictional discovery to "fish for a possible basis for this court's jurisdiction."[16]

         Further, the decision to grant jurisdictional discovery is discretionary.[17] "The trial court is vested with a certain discretion in shaping the procedure by which a motion under Rule 12(b)(2) is resolved."[18] And, "[w]hen the decision that is the subject of reargument rests on the court's exercise of its discretion . . . 'no fact or legal precedent may "compel" a different result absent a showing of abuse of discretion.'"[19] Plaintiff's motion for reargument is effectively a collateral attack on the Court's exercise of that discretion, which is an inappropriate basis for reargument.

         For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reargument is DENIED.

---------

Notes:

[1] C.A. No. 2019-0034-KSJM, Docket ("Dkt.") 46, Pl. Neurvana Medical, LLC's Mot. for Reargument ("Pl.'s Mot."); see Neurvana Med., LLC v. Balt USA, LLC, 2019 WL 4464268 (Del. Ch. ...


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.