Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
Publication Date: 2023-09-04
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Manufacturing | Retail | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Davis
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Krista M. Reale, Margolis Edelstein, Wilmington, DE; Herbert W. Mondros, Rigrodsky Law, P.A. Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: K. Tyler O’Connell, Barnaby Grzaslewicz, Samuel E. Bashman, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eric C. Liebeler, Kevin Kitchen, Connor Shaull, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN for defendants.
Case Number: N20C-10-121-EMD
Concluding that the facts alleged for the breach of contract claim in the original complaint were similar to those pled in the claim for tortious interference in the amended complaint, the court denied defendant's motion to dismiss finding that defendant was provided sufficient notice of the tortious interference claim to relate back to the original complaint.
Publication Date: 2023-09-04
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Rennie
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David Wilks, D. Charles Vavala III, Wilks Law LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Karen Jacobs, Alexandra Cumings, Stephanie Rudolph, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: N23C-01-229 SKR CCLD
The court granted defendant's motion to stay Delaware proceedings in deference to an earlier-filed pending case in federal district court in California finding that the parties and issues presented were substantially identical, the California court could provide prompt and complete justice, and allowing the California and Delaware actions to proceed simultaneously would risk waste of judicial resources and inconsistent resolution of the issues.
Publication Date: 2023-09-04
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Education | Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Laurence C. Cronin, Kelly A. Green, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; William J. Leahy, Tanner McCarron, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Philadelphia, PA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Richard P. Rollo, Travis S. Hunter, Tyler E. Cragg, Griffin A. Schoenbaum, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2023-0546-LWW
Former employees did not breach non-compete agreements where the agreements specifically defined competition as in the business lines of the employer's parent company rather than the employer that the employees worked for.
Publication Date: 2023-09-04
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Health Care
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael A. Barlow, Adam K. Schulman, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Anthony Bongiorno, Jessica Reese, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Boston, MA; Rollo C. Baker IV, Eric White, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Lewis H. Lazarus, K. Tyler O’Connell, Albert J. Carroll, Barnaby Grzaslewicz, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy W. Knapp, Brendan E. Ryan, Kent J. Hayden, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL for defendants.
Case Number: 2022-0289-SG
Finding that that the asset purchase agreement executed by the parties had created a scheme for prorating Medicaid reimbursement distribution payments relating to the year in which closing on the hospitals occurred consistent with defendants' construction of the agreement, the court granted partial summary judgment to defendants.
Publication Date: 2023-09-04
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Consulting | Energy
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Slomsky
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1460
Court declined to dismiss Fair Labor Standards Act overtime action where defendant controlled the means of plaintiffs' work and plaintiffs had no opportunity for business profit or loss or to market their services to other companies.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: THOMAS J. FINN, PAULA CRUZ CEDILLO
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-09-04
Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Industry: Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David L. Finger, Finger & Slanina, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jimmy C. Chong, Chong Law Firm, PA, Wilmington, DE; Ronald W. Burns, Frisco, Texas for plaintiff.
for defendant: Alan Richard Silverstein, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark K. Suri, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Douglas Anderson, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Ricardo J. Bonilla, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Dallas, TX for defendants.
Case Number: 22-572-CFC
Court imposed a civil contempt sanction upon plaintiff's owner for her failure to appear for questioning by the court as ordered, as the court had the inherent authority to impose contempt to enforce its lawful orders.
Publication Date: 2023-09-04
Practice Area: Wrongful Death
Industry: Health Care
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Butler
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Patrick C. Gallagher, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Geoffrey G. Grivner, Kody M. Sparks, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: N22C-03-213 CEB
PREP Act immunity did not apply to complaint alleging ordinary negligence by a nursing home in failing to take steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to residents.
Publication Date: 2023-08-28
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Energy
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Justin L. Swidler, Swartz Swidler, Haddonfield, NJ for appellants.
for defendant: Kimberly Cheeseman, Michael C. Crow, Katherine D. Mackillop, Norton Rose Fulbright, Houston, TX for appellees.
Case Number: 22-1613
Court adopted test to determine whether employer required clothing or protective/safety gear was integral to an employee's job duties, which included factors such as the location of changing, whether government regulations required the clothing/gear, and the type of clothing or gear involved.
Publication Date: 2023-08-28
Practice Area: Class Actions
Industry: Insurance
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John P. Elliott, Kyle M. Elliott, Stewart J. Greenleaf, Jr., Mark J. Schwemler, Elliott Greenleaf, Blue Bell, PA for petitioner.
for defendant: Charles Kannebecker, Milford, PA for respondent.
Case Number: 22-8056
The issue before the court was when the timeframe for filing an interlocutory appeal of a class certification order could be extended under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which authorizes interlocutory review of orders "granting or denying class-action certification" of petitions filed within 14 days of the order. Here, petitioner filed a Rule 23(f) petition 14 days after the district court had revised its class certification order but months after the original order certifying the class. Respondent, who had received disabilit
Publication Date: 2023-08-28
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Adams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Counsel: Kevin M. Capuzzi, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Paul D. Brown, Mark L. Desgrosseilliers, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; F. Maximilian Czernin, Peter R. Morrison, Squire Patton Boggs, LLP, Cincinnati, OH for defendant.
Case Number: N22C-12-143 MAA CCLD
Plaintiff, in its capacity as trustee of plaintiff's company, filed suit against the company's investor for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, as well as other claims that had been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged that, when its company had been in a precarious financial situation which had been known by defendant, defendant had intentionally interfered with a prospective deal the company was negotiating with another investor by actively discouraging the deal within
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read