Opinion
C.A. NO. 8739-VCN
08-25-2014
Re: CCC Atlantic, LLC v. Grey
Kevin W. Gibson, Esquire Gibson & Perkins P.C. 1326 King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 John D. Balaguer, Esquire White and Williams LLP 824 N. Market Street, Suite 902 Wilmington, DE 19801 Barry M. Willoughby, Esquire Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP 100 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 William J. Cattie, iii, Esquire Rawle & Henderson LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1015 Wilmington, DE 19801 Bradley P. Lehman, Esquire Zarwin Baum DeVito Kaplan Schaer Toddy P.C. 1000 North West Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801
Kevin W. Gibson, Esquire
Gibson & Perkins P.C.
1326 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
John D. Balaguer, Esquire
White and Williams LLP
824 N. Market Street, Suite 902
Wilmington, DE 19801
Barry M. Willoughby, Esquire
Young Conaway Stargatt
& Taylor, LLP
100 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
William J. Cattie, iii, Esquire
Rawle & Henderson LLP
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1015
Wilmington, DE 19801
Bradley P. Lehman, Esquire
Zarwin Baum DeVito Kaplan Schaer Toddy P.C.
1000 North West Street, Suite 1200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Dear Counsel:
In a July 3, 2014 letter accompanying the letter opinion dismissing Plaintiff's fiduciary duty claims, the Court inquired as to whether it should retain jurisdiction of the remaining claims that could be handled at law. Plaintiffs moved for reargument; when that motion was denied, the Court again requested Plaintiffs' views on retention of jurisdiction. No response to that inquiry has been received. Intervenor The Bancorp Bank wrote on July 25, 2014, urging the Court to retain jurisdiction under the cleanup doctrine.
Letter of Bradley P. Lehman, Esq., dated July 25, 2014. One reason offered for the Court's retaining jurisdiction was that Bancorp planned to file a related action in this Court, and, thus, judicial economy might be served by keeping this case here. I am not aware of the filing of any such action.
Reliance on the cleanup doctrine is a matter for the Court's discretion. In this instance, with the dismissal of the equitable claims, there is no good reason to retain jurisdiction. The other issues in this litigation, generally in the nature of malpractice, are properly resolved in the Superior Court. This action is in its early stages, and no prejudice would result from the action's transfer to a law court. Accordingly, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction under the cleanup doctrine or any other grounds.
Donald J. Wolfe, Jr. and Michael A. Pittenger, Corporate and Commercial Practice in the Del. Ct. of Chancery § 2.04 (2013).
--------
Therefore, this action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs, if they so choose, may seek to transfer this action to the Superior Court within sixty days in accordance with 10 Del. C. § 1902.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ John W. Noble JWN/cap
cc: Register in Chancery-K