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.

Cook Children's Health Care System v. Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc.

Superior Court of Delaware

December 18, 2019

COOK CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, Plaintiff,
v.
CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND, INC., Defendant.

          Date Submitted: October 1, 2019

         Upon Defendant Cornerstone OnDemand Inc 's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied.

          Patricia A. Winston, Esquire, Kathleen A. Murphy, Esquire, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Geoffrey Scott Harper, Esquire, Of Counsel, Winston & Strawn LLP, Dallas, Texas, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

          Douglas D. Herrmann, Esquire, Ellis E. Herington, Esquire, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Lawrence J. Imel, Esquire, Of Counsel (pro hac vice), Lurie, Zepeda, Schmalz, Hogan & Martin, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendant.

          Honorable Calvin L. Scott, Jr. Judge

         Before the Court is Defendant Cornerstone OnDemand Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is DENIED.

         Background

         Plaintiff Cook Children's Health Care System ("Plaintiff) and Defendant Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc. ("Defendant") entered into an agreement in July 2017. The instant case is a contractual dispute based on that 2017 agreement. In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Breach of Contract, Fraudulent Inducement, and Declaratory Judgment against Defendant. In its Answer, Defendant alleges Breach of Contract against Plaintiff.

         Parties' Assertions

         Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it is entitled to summary judgment on all three of Plaintiffs claims. On the breach of contract claim, Defendant argues the 2017 agreement did not obligate Defendant to complete the project by November 1, 2017 and that Plaintiff breached the 2017 agreement before November 1st by failing to make the first payment by August 29, 2017 and by failing to provide Defendant with certain deliverables. On the fraudulent inducement claim, Defendant argues that there is no evidence that Defendant intentionally or recklessly misrepresented its ability to fulfill its obligations. On the declaratory judgment claim, Defendant argues a declaratory judgment for Plaintiff is improper because Plaintiff breached the agreement.

         Plaintiff argues that summary judgment is not proper on any of its claims because there are genuine issues of material fact. Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to file admissible evidence in support of its motion to suppress. Plaintiff contends that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant breached the contract or anticipatorily repudiated prior to Plaintiffs alleged breach of the agreement. Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant repeatedly represented to Plaintiff that it could complete the project by November 1, 2017 and that Defendant intentionally drafted schedules showing that the project would be done by November 1st when it knew that the entire project could not be completed until much later.

         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.[1] 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.