Opinions Digested in Delaware Law Weekly for the Issue of
  April 9th, 2008

 


DELAWARE SUPREME COURT

CIVIL PRACTICE

Pleadings l Answer l Motion to Amend l Affirmative Defense l Statute of Limitations

Abdi v. NVR, Inc. DeFAX Case No. D63198 (Del. Supr. March 25, 2008).

Even though defendant did not actually file its amended answer asserting the statute of limitations defense, defendant was nonetheless entitled to summary judgment on the basis of that defense where the trial court granted defendant leave to amend the answer and where defendant’s motion for leave to amend had a copy of the proposed amended answer attached to it as an exhibit. Affirmed.
 

GOVERNMENT

Public Employees l Police Officer l Suspension l Hearing l Waiver

Town of Cheswold v. Rosario DeFAX Case No. D63197 (Del. Supr. April 1, 2008).

That a police officer failed to keep an updated address on file with the town was irrelevant to an alleged waiver of the officer’s right to a hearing following his suspension since the town never scheduled the required hearing. Affirmed.
 


DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY

BUSINESS LAW

Bylaws and Charters l Notice Bylaw l Applicability

JANA Master Fund, Ltd. v. CNET Networks, Inc. DeFAX Case No. D63191 (Del. Ch. March 13, 2008).

Because plaintiff intended to independently finance its own proxy materials, it did not need to comply with the requirements of the corporation’s notice bylaw, which applied only to nominations and proposals made under Rule 14a-8 of the federal securities laws. Motion for judgment on the pleadings granted.
 


DELAWARE SUPERIOR COURT

CIVIL PRACTICE

Trial Administration l Motion to Stay/Dismiss l First-filed Action l De Facto Contemporaneous Filing

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Tyson Foods, Inc. DeFAX Case No. D63194 (Del. Super. March 7, 2008).

Although the parties’ separate actions were filed close to one another in time, they were filed far enough apart to determine the first-filed action and, therefore, there was no basis for finding a de facto contemporaneous filing. Motion to stay or dismiss denied.
 

EVIDENCE

Drug and Alcohol Use l Alcohol l Single-car Accident l Causal Link l Prejudice

Holland v. Allstate Ins. Co. DeFAX Case No. D63193 (Del. Super. March 7, 2008).

A substantial risk of unfair prejudice or confusion outweighed any probative value attached to evidence of the driver’s alcohol consumption where the defendant did not make any causal link between the driver’s alcohol consumption and the accident. The evidence was ruled inadmissible.
 


COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

CIVIL PRACTICE

Default Judgment l Motion to Vacate l Service on Registered Agent l Failure to Update Address

Dexta Federal Credit Union v. Holly Oak Towing & Service Center Inc. DeFAX Case No. D63190 (Del. Com. Pl. March 31, 2008).

Since defendant did not act as a reasonably prudent person when it failed to update its business address with its registered agent, the court rejected defendant’s argument that it was entitled to have a default judgment vacated because it did not receive timely notice of the suit. Motion to vacate judgment and reopen case denied.
 

REAL PROPERTY

Real Estate Transactions l Sales Agreement l Recovery of Deposit

Johnson v. Benchmark Builders, Inc. DeFAX Case No. D63189 (Del. Com. Pl. March 17, 2008).

Where the parties disputed plaintiffs’ right to recover a $5,000 deposit under an agreement of sale, plaintiffs were not entitled to summary judgment because there was a material issue of fact as to whether they had applied for financing in the full amount required under the agreement’s mortgage contingency clause. Motions for summary judgment denied.
 


INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Employee Status l Independent Contractor/Subcontractor l Relevant Factors

Ciratella v. PJ King Enterprises DeFAX Case No. D63195 (IAB Feb. 5, 2008).

Claimant failed to establish that he was respondent’s employee where all of the factors to be considered in determining whether an injured worker is an independent contractor/subcontractor or an employee weighed in favor of a subcontractor relationship. Employment status determined.