Filter This View

  • Zephyr Fluid Solutions, LLC v. Scholle IPN Packaging, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-03-07
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Fallon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-cv-00475-SRF

    Court granted plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration where the mere filing of a complaint, without any further litigation, did not constitute a waiver of the contractual right to compel arbitration, and the parties' agreement included a no-waiver clause.

  • Farley v. Bonefish Grill, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-03-07
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Hospitality and Lodging
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Brennan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Sean Gambogi, Kimmel, Carter, Roam, Peltz & O’Neill, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kevin Connors, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
    Case Number: N17C-12-265 DJB

    Motion for new trial based on spoliated video footage denied where the footage would not have captured evidence relevant to plaintiff's slip and fall claim.

  • White Winston Select Asset Funds, LLC v. Good Times Rests, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-02-21
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard Alan Barkasy, Stephen A. Fogdall, Kristi JoLynn Doughty, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Catherine A. Gaul, Michael Dean Walker, Jr., Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Davis G. Mosmeyer III, Peter L. Loh, Sara A. Brown, Foley & Lardner LLP, Dallas, TX for defendant.
    Case Number: 19-cv-02092-SB

    Breach of duty to negotiate in good faith claim rejected where parties' non-binding letter of intent let seller walk away for any reason and seller continued to pursue the transaction up until new financial performance data motivated seller to ask for higher price, where the evidence showed that seller would have consummated the transaction at that higher price.

  • In re McDonald's Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2023-02-07
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Barry, Christine M. Mackintosh, Rebecca A. Musarra, Vivek Upadhya, Michael D. Bell, Grant & Eisenhoffer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Barbara J. Hart, Grant & Eisenhoffer P.A., New York, NY; Geoffrey M. Johnson, Scott + Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, Cleveland Heights, OH; Jing-Li Yu, Scott + Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, New York, NY; Max R. Huffman, Scott + Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, San Diego, CA; Jeffrey M. Norton, Benjamin D. Baker, Newman Ferrara LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Garrett B. Moritz, S. Reiko Rogozen, Holly E. Newell, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ronald L. Olson, George M. Garvey, Robert L. Dell Angelo, Brian R. Boessenecker, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel C. Herr, Law Offices of Daniel C. Herr LLC, Wilmington, DE; Shawn P. Naunton, Catherine S. Duval, Leila Bijan, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, New York, NY; Kathleen M. Miller, Julie M. O’Dell, Jason Z. Miller, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: 2021-0324-JTL

    The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff shareholders successfully pled facts sufficient to establish a claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of a corporate vice president's behavior consisting of condoning sexual harassment and breaching the duty of oversight.

  • Fretz v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd.

    Publication Date: 2022-12-20
    Practice Area: Administrative Law
    Industry: Food and Beverage | State and Local Government
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Primos
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: William Fretz, pro se appellant
    for defendant: Dover, DE. Michael G. Rushe, Hudson, Jones, Jaywork & Fisher, LLC, Dover, DE; Victoria E. Groff, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for appellees.
    Case Number: K22A-05-003 NEP

    The court remanded a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying appellant's unemployment benefits on the basis that he voluntarily left his position and therefore did not qualify for benefits under 19 Del. C. §3314(1).

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Chester County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Jung v. El Tinieblo Int'l, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-11-15
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory F. Birney, Birney Law, LLC, Claymont, DE; Matt Simmons, Law Offices of Matt Simmons, Esq., Rockville, MD for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Robert K. Beste, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kimberly E. Blair, Deanna M. Williams, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Chicago, IL for defendants.
    Case Number: 2021-0798-MTZ

    Full Faith and Credit Clause prohibited state from having exclusive jurisdiction clause that required transitory claims to be heard in that state, as such a law failed to give due respect to the judicial proceedings of other states.

  • United States v. United States Sugar Corp.

    Publication Date: 2022-10-11
    Practice Area: Antitrust
    Industry: Federal Government | Food and Beverage
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Laura Hatcher, Shamoor Anis, United States Attorney’s Office, Wilmington, DE; Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, Jenigh Garrett, Jill Ptacek, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack Blumenfeld, Brian Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Amanda Reeves, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Elyse M. Greenwald, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel K. Hogan, Daniel C. Kerrick, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Amanda L. Wait, Vic Domen, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Darryl Wade Anderson, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Houston, TX; Christine A. Varney, David R. Marriott, Peter T. Parbur, Timothy G. Cameron, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: 21-1644 (MN)

    Court denied a request by plaintiff to enjoin an acquisition of a sugar company the Government argued would result in a monopoly of the sugar market in the southeastern United States. The court reviewed evidence from trial noting that the markets for industrial consumers were different from retail consumers, thus broadening the base and the market. The court further found that plaintiff's argument was undermined by the fact that they control the sugar supply within the United States.

  • G-New, Inc. v. Endurance Am. Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2022-09-27
    Practice Area: Insurance Litigation
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Insurance | Manufacturing
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Johnston
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jennifer C. Wasson, Carla M. Jones, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Vivek Chopra, Jonathan G. Hardin, Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Marc S. Casarino, Kennedys CMK LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael L. Zigelman, Kristina I. Duffy, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP, New York, NY; Kurt M. Heyman, Aaron M. Nelson, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Scott B. Schreiber, Arthur Luk, Matthew Bemis, Elliot Rosenwald, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
    Case Number: N21C-10-100 MMJ CCLD

    The court granted a motion to dismiss in part and denied a motion to dismiss in part.

  • Diep v. Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-07-12
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Hospitality and Lodging | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Seitz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ralph N. Sianni, Andersen Sleater Sianni LLC, Wilmington, DE; Hung G. Ta, JooYun Kim, Natalia D. Williams, HGT LAW, New York, NY; Peter Safirstein, Safirstein Metcalf LLP, New York, NY for appellant.
    for defendant: Kurt M. Heyman, Jamie L. Brown, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Adam H. Offenhartz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY; Tyler H. Amass, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Denver, CO for appellees.
    Case Number: D69883

    Chancery court properly granted corporation's special litigation committee's motion to dismiss derivative claims, where there was not sufficient evidence to raise a material dispute regarding the independence of the SLC or the reasonableness of the findings of the SLC's investigation into the claims.

  • CPC Mikawaya Holdings, LLC v. MyMo Intermediate, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-07-12
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Food and Beverage
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin R. Shannon, Christopher N. Kelly, Emma K. Diver, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; John E. Schreiber, Aaron C. O’Dell, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, April M. Kirby, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy R. Farrell, Ropes & Gray LLP, Chicago, IL; Patrick S. Doherty, Ropes & Gray LLP, London, UK; Sarah M. Milkovich, Ropes & Gray LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.
    Case Number: D69878

    Seller sufficiently alleged breach of written and oral contracts where merger agreement required buyer to complete pre-closing tax returns according to past practices and buyer instead used novel practices, but the change in practices was authorized by the parties' oral agreement in which the seller agreed to the change in exchange for receipt of the tax return proceeds.