Posts tagged Jurisdiction

District Court Rules That Spanish Subsidiary of Delaware Parent Corporation is an Indispensible Party to Allegations under DUTSA

Ethypharm S.A. France v. Bentley Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 388 F. Supp. 2d 426 (D.Del. 2005). United States District Court for the District of Delaware considered motions to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party and a motion to dismiss various common law counts are precluded by the Delaware Uniform Trade Secret Act ("DUTSA"). More › Share

Court of Chancery Enjoins Consummation Of Purchase Agreement Pending Arbitration

Flight Options Int'l, Inc. v. Flight Options, LLC, C.A. No. 1459-N, 2005 WL 2335353 (Del. Ch. Sept. 20, 2005). Plaintiff sought preliminary injunction against consummation of Purchase Agreement pending arbitration of its substantive disputes with Defendant. More › Share

District Court Finds Consumer Lacks Standing to Bring Claim under DTPA Against Seller of Chartered Motor Yacht Services

Worldspan, L.P. v. The Ultimate Living Group, LLC, 390 F.Supp.2d 412 (D.Del., 2005). United States District Court for the District of Delaware considered a motion to dismiss a claim alleging breach of a maritime contract for a one-day charter of a motor yacht, unjust enrichment, conversion and a violation of Delaware's Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DPTA"). More › Share

Federal Court Denies Remand Motion Despite Delaware Dissolution and Fiduciary Claims

Polak v. Kobayashi, No. Civ. A. 05-330 JJF, 2005 WL 2008306 (D.Del. Aug. 22, 2005). Plaintiff filed a motion to remand a matter involving several Delaware state law claims, alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction and because complete diversity of citizenship did not exist. Alternatively, plaintiff claimed that the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction on the Burford abstention doctrine. Defendant filed a motion to remove the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 to the District Court for the District of Hawaii. The court denied the motion to remand. More › Share

Superior Court Refuses to Dismiss Delaware Action, But Stays Delaware Action in Favor of Michigan Action

Royal Indem. Co. v. General Motors Corp., C.A. No. 05C-01-223 RRC, 2005 WL 1952933 (Del. Super. Ct. July 26, 2005). Royal Indemnity Company ("Royal") sought a declaratory judgment to determine whether it had an obligation to General Motors ("GM") in relation to insurance purchased by GM over the course of several decades from Royal. GM filed a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, and the Court denied the motion to dismiss. More › Share

Federal Court Declines To Exercise Jurisdiction Involving Predominantly State Law Claims

In Re Litigation Trust of MDIP, Inc., No. Civ.A. No. 03-779GMS, 2005 WL 1242157 (D.Del. May 25, 2005). The Court considered six motions in this action: (1) motion to dismiss Count I, seeking to recover damages from directors for breach of fiduciary duties of care, duty and loyalty and to dismiss Count II, asserting a claim for damages against director Rapoport; (2) a motion for partial summary judgment on both counts above; (3) a motion to strike the plaintiff's summary judgment affidavits; (4) a motion to strike the plaintiff's jury demand; (5) a motion in limine for exclusion of evidence and testimony not disclosed in plaintiff's responses and contention interrogatories; and (6) a motion in limine to preclude evidence relating to events that took place prior to August 6, 1998. The Court granted the motions to dismiss Counts I and II but denied the other motions as moot to the extent they related to Counts I and II. More › Share

Federal Court Denies Motion To Remand Because Plaintiffs Demand For Coverage Met the Amount-In-Controversy Requirement

Eames v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. CIV.A. 04-1324-KAJ, 2005 WL 1385130 (D.Del. Apr. 27, 2005). The plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand a proposed class action involving insurance issues. The defendant removed the action from the Delaware Superior Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs alleged that because the amount requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 ($75,000) were not met, the action merited remand. The Court denied plaintiffs' motion. More › Share

Federal Court Dismisses Claim Of Personal Jurisdiction Because Website Listing Did Not Meet Due Process Requirement

Kalk v. Fairfield Language Technologies, No. Civ.A. 04-1486-JJF, 2005 WL 945715 (D.Del. Apr. 22, 2005). Pro se Plaintiff, a resident of Delaware, filed a Complaint against defendants' alleging tort claims. Defendants' filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. The background to the suit involved violation of an alleged non-competition covenant by Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that subsequently, Defendants' caused the termination of his employment from Auralog, Inc., by sending a letter to them. Plaintiff filed this Complaint which alleged Tortious Interference with Contract and Conspiracy Against Rights. Plaintiff claimed that the court had subject matter jurisdiction under diversity of citizenship. However, Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate personal jurisdiction over the defendants'. Accordingly, the court granted the Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because: (1)Defendant Fairfield Language Technologies et al was a Virginia incorporated entity with its principal place of business in that state; (2) its President and Chairman, Defendant Eugene Stoltzfus, resided and worked in Virginia; (3) Defendant Kathryn S. Fairfield, its General Counsel likewise was a resident and worked in Virginia; and (4) none of the Defendants' had "purposefully availed" business in Delaware. More › Share

Court of Chancery Dismisses Attorney General's Claims under the Consumer Fraud Act and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act as Being Time Barred, but Sustains Claim under the Health Spa Regulation

State ex rel. Brady v. Pettinaro Enterprises, 870 A.2d 513 (Del. Ch. 2005). Attorney General brought consumer protection action under the Consumer Fraud Act, the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Health Spa Regulation against developer of condominium complex, alleging, among other things, that developer misled condominium purchasers into believing that clubhouse was part of the complex. Developer moved to dismiss action on the basis that the statute of limitations barred the Attorney General's claims and for failure to state a claim under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. More ›

Share

Federal Court Orders Supplementation Of Record With Citizenship Status Of LLC Members In Motion To Remand

Shamrock Holdings of California, Inc. v. Arenson, No. Civ. 04-1339-SLR, 2005 WL 400198 (D.Del. Jan. 27, 2005). Plaintiffs commenced an action for declaratory relief pursuant to 10 Del. C. §§ 6501 et seq. (2004) in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The defendants had earlier threatened to sue the plaintiffs for "millions of dollars." The defendants removed the action to the federal court and filed separate motions to dismiss which were stayed under mutual stipulations, pending resolution of plaintiffs Motion to Remand. The Court ordered the defendants to supplement the record with respect to certain corporate members of defendants SELK and Laurel Equity Group, LLC. The Court also admonished the defendants that a failure to timely supplement the record would result in the grant of plaintiffs' Motion to remand. More › Share

Court of Chancery Dismisses Claims Against Third-Party Defendants for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Despite Officer and Agent Status

Amaysing Technologies Corp. v. CyberAir Communications, Inc., 2005 WL 578972 (Del. Ch. March 3, 2005). Amaysing Technologies Corp. ("ATC") brought an action for breach of a loan agreement against CyberAir Communications, Inc. ("CyberAir"). CyberAir filed a third-party complaint alleging various misrepresentations and frauds against Robert Mays, Jr., and Raymond Atilano, both of whom were officers and shareholders of ATC, and Med Fadel, an agent of ATC (together referred to as "Third-Party Defendants"). Third-party Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, which the court granted. More › Share

Federal Court Approves Transfer Of Case To Connecticut Court Based On Valid Forum-Selection Clause In Franchise Agreement

Bbdova, LLC v. Automotive Technologies, Inc., 358 F.Supp.2d 387 (D.Del. 2005). This is a diversity suit between plaintiff, a New Jersey limited liability corporation authorized to do business in Delaware with its principal place of business in Newark, Delaware and a Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business in that state. Defendant operated a business of franchising third parties to own and operate retail wireless stores. The plaintiff filed for declaratory judgment, challenging the validity of the Franchise Agreement and its Amendment. The defendant removed the case to the Federal District Court for the District of Delaware and then sought to either dismiss the case or transfer it to a court in Connecticut. The Court approved the forum selection clause and ordered transfer. More › Share

Court Of Chancery Ropes In Florida Corporation On Conspiracy Theory For Jurisdictional Nexus

Benihana of Tokyo, Inc. v. Benihana, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 550-N (Del. Ch. Feb. 28, 2005). This case deals with several motions to dismiss on several grounds, the upholding of personal jurisdiction under a conspiracy or aiding/abetting theory and plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment. More › Share

Federal Court Declines To Transfer Case To Arizona After Applying The Jumara Test

J-Squared Technologies, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. Civ.04-960-SLR, 2005 WL 388599 (D.Del. Feb. 4, 2005). Plaintiff brought suit alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) promissory estoppel; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; and (5) violation of Arizona's Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages. The defendant moved to transfer the action to the District of Arizona or alternatively dismiss the case under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6). The Court denied the Motion to Transfer. More › Share

Plaintiff Loses Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction

American Scheduling, Inc. v. Radiant Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 725-N, 2005 WL 736889 (Del. Ch. Feb. 09, 2005). This is a motion to quash jurisdictional discovery. The court granted the motion, quashing the discovery. More › Share