Filter This View

  • Micro Focus (US), Inc. v. Ins. Serv. Office, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-05-24
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Insurance | Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: J. Clayton Athey, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Hugh J. Marbury, Kaan Ekiner, Ryan P. Bottegal, Cozen O’Connor, Washington, DC; Stuart M.G. Seraina, BaldwinLaw LLC, Baltimore, MD for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Brian R. Lemon, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Scott S. Christie, McCarter & English, LLP, Newark, NJ for defendant.
    Case Number: D69827

    Although one defendant lacked standing to assert breach of contract claims where it was not a party or intended third-party beneficiary of the contract as it did not exist at the time of contract formation, the district court could exercise its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after having dismissed all federal claims.

  • Greentech Consultancy Co., WLL v. Hilco IP Servs., LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-05-24
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Consulting
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge LeGrow
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Theodore A. Kittila, William E. Green, Jr., Halloran Farkas & Kittila LLP, Wilmington, DEs for plaintiff
    for defendant: Richard L. Renck, Duane Morris LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
    Case Number: D69825

    Implied contractual obligation in preliminary agreement to negotiate a final agreement in good faith was an enforceable contractual obligation, but summary judgment was inappropriate where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant acted in bad faith during the negotiations.

  • ADGS, LLC v. Emery Silfurtun, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-05-24
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Davis
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Christian J. Singewald, Kelly E. Rowe, White and Williams LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Kelly E. Farnan, Valerie A. Caras, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: D69824

    Claims dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction where no act or injury took place in Delaware, such that the court could not exercise jurisdiction over foreign entities under either a conduct-based or successor liability theory.

  • Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. v. Smitreski

    Publication Date: 2022-05-10
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Consumer Products | Distribution and Wholesale
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew Lynch Cole, Cole Schotz P.C., Wilmington, DE; Ivan R. Novich, Tyler A. Sims, Littler Mendelson P.C., Newark, NJ for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Margaret M. DiBianca, Clark Hill PLC, Wilmington, DE; David Phillip Primack, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eric J. Schreiner, Lorena E. Ahumada, Kleinbard LLC, Philadelphia, PA for defendants.
    Case Number: D69810

    The court found that because the plain text of the forum-selection clause did not force defendant to litigate in Chancery Court, he could consent to removal of the case from Chancery Court to District Court.

  • Huret v. MondoBrain, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-05-10
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael W. McDermott, Peter C. McGivney, Berger Harris LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: James D. Taylor, Jr., Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Joseph L. Manson III, Law Offices of Joseph L. Manson III, Alexandria, VA for defendants.
    Case Number: D69807

    The court found that director defendant named in a shareholder derivative suit was not entitled to indemnification for his defense costs because the settlement agreement he negotiated did not constitute success on the merits.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Florida Evidence and Procedure 2019

    Authors: Patrick S. Montoya, Ervin A. Gonzalez, Ervin A. Gonzalez, Ervin A. Gonzalez, Ervin A. Gonzalez

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • QAD, Inc. v. Block & Co., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-05-10
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Manufacturing | Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Fallon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: D69811

    In this memorandum opinion, the court found the arbitrator's award in favor of plaintiff to be supported by the evidence.

  • Pentwater Capital Mgmt. LP v. Kaz

    Publication Date: 2022-04-26
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen B. Brauerman, Jason C. Jowers, Sarah T. Andrade, Justin C. Barrett, Bayard P.A. Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Rudolf Koch, Kyle Lachmund, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Daniel Lynch, Lynch Thompson LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.
    Case Number: D69790

    The court held that any harm incurred by plaintiffs by allowing the forum selection cause issue to be litigated in Illinois was of their own making such that plaintiffs should not be allowed to enjoin the Illinois action.

  • Schuetze, Inc. v. Utilligent, LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-04-19
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Consulting
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David B. Anthony, Peter C. McGivney, Berger Harris, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian Hansen, Clayton O. Knowles, Adams and Reese LLP, Atlanta, GA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Robert A. Penza, Joseph C. Sharp, Stephen J. Kraftschik, Polsinelli PC, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
    Case Number: D69788

    The court held that plaintiff failed to state a claim for either fraud or breach of implied covenant.

  • State of Delaware Ins. Coverage Office v. DiSabatino Constr. Co.

    Publication Date: 2022-03-29
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Construction | Insurance | State and Local Government
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Davis
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Allison McCowan, Sarah Fruehauf, Zi-Xiang Shen, State of Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE; Timothy Jay Houseal, Jennifer M. Kinkus, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Seth A. Niederman, Fox Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael J. Follet, Naulty, Scaricamazza & McDevitt, L.L.C., Wilmington, DE; Kenneth M. Doss, Casarino Christmas Shalk Ransom & Doss, P.A., Wilmington, DE, for defendants.
    Case Number: D69763

    Parties' manifested intent to be bound to contract form where use of the forms was contemplated by the project proposal and one party executed the contract forms at the explicit request of the other party.

  • Cox Commc'ns, Inc. v. T-Mobile US, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-03-15
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Traynor
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen C. Norman, Jaclyn C. Levy, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Geoffrey P. Eaton, Matthew L. DiRisio, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC; Mitchell G. Stockwell, Joel D. Bush, II, Jeffrey H. Fisher, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA for appellant.
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, Stephen C. Childs, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Hallie B. Levin, Peter G. Neiman, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY; John J. Butts, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA for appellee.
    Case Number: D69746

    The court found that the lower court erred in its interpretation of a section of the settlement agreement between the parties, finding that the subject language was a Type II agreement that left open terms to be negotiated in the future.