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.

Azadian Group, LLC v. Tenx Group, LLC

Superior Court of Delaware

November 13, 2019

AZADIAN GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff,
v.
TENX GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, JAMES V. PUNELLI, individually, and RAYMOND C. JONES, individually, Defendants.

          Date Submitted: September 24, 2019

         Upon Plaintiff Azadian Group, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment Granted.

          Samuel L. Moultrie, Esquire, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiff.

          Steven T. Margolin, Esquire, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiff

          Rolando Diaz, Esquire, Dunlap, Bennett & Ludwig, PLLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendants.

          Tracy L. Pearson, Esquire, Dunlap, Bennett & Ludwig, PLLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendants.

          HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOTT, J.

         On September 20, 2019, Defendant TenX Group, LLC-now known as Panthera Enterprises, LLC-filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy with this Court. Accordingly, the proceedings against Panthera Enterprises, LLC/TenX Group, LLC have been STAYED.

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Azadian Group, LLC's ("Plaintiff) Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED.

         Background

         On April 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants James V. Punnelli and Raymond C. Jones ("Defendants"), alleging breach of contract. On December 20, 2018, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to pay $86, 829.00 on or before January 30, 2019, as required by the Settlement Agreement.

         Parties' Assertions

         On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed this motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff argues that summary judgment is proper on all of Defendants' affirmative defenses because Defendants contractually waived their right to defend against any action Plaintiff would file to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff points out that Defendants admitted to breaching the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff argues that summary judgment in its favor is appropriate because the terms of the Settlement Agreement are unambiguous.

         On September 5, 2019, Defendants filed their response. Defendants contend that Plaintiff relies in error on Great Lakes Chemical Corp. v. Pharmacia Corp. for the proposition that Defendants waived all defenses. Pharmacia Corp., Defendants argue, concerned express disclaimers in a purchase agreement that prohibited claims for fraud. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff waived its right to assert the waiver-of-defenses clause because Plaintiff served process on Defendants via Federal Express after Defendants moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process.[1] Finally, Defendants argue that the Settlement Agreement is unenforceable based on the doctrine of unconscionability.

         Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court on September 16, 2019 making additional arguments in support of its position. Because this Court never gave Plaintiff formal permission to file a reply brief, the Court has not taken into account the arguments Plaintiff raised in the letter of September 16.

         Standard of Review

         Under Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.[2] Summary judgment will not be granted if material facts are in dispute or if "it seems desirable to inquire more thoroughly into the facts to clarify the application of the law to the ...


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.