Opinions Digested in Delaware Law Weekly for the Issue of
CIVIL PRACTICE Trial Administration • Remand for New Trial • Reopening of Discovery • Denial Wright v. Moore DeFAX Case No. D63280 (Del. Supr. June 17, 2008).
Upon remand for a new trial, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to reopen discovery so that plaintiff could present evidence of new medical expenses incurred after the first trial, and the trial court’s strong views on the merits of the case justified reassigning the case to a new trial court judge. Reversed and remanded.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION Dismissal • Employer’s Motion to Dismiss • Claimant’s Voluntary Withdrawal of Petition Without Prejudice Conagra/Pilgrim’s Pride, Inc. v. Green DeFAX Case No. D63279 (Del. Supr. June 17, 2008).
The Industrial Accident Board did not err in allowing claimant to voluntarily withdraw her petition without prejudice and in denying the motion to dismiss that employer filed in response. Affirmed.
BUSINESS LAW Limited Partnership • General Partner • Breach of Fiduciary Duty Venhill Limited Partnership v. Hillman DeFAX Case No. D63284 (Del. Ch. June 3, 2008).
Having knowingly pursued his personal objectives over the best interests of the limited partnership, the general partner acted disloyally and was liable to the limited partnership for the harm that he caused. Judgment for plaintiffs.
BUSINESS LAW Shareholder Suit • Derivative Action • Special Litigation Committee • Investigation • Reargument Sutherland v. Sutherland, DeFAX Case No. D63275 (Del. Ch. May 29, 2008).
Defendants were not entitled to reargument of the court’s prior decision declining to dismiss this derivative action on the basis of the special litigation committee’s report because the court did not misapply the law or misapprehend material facts in reaching its decision. Motion for reargument denied.
CIVIL PRACTICE Pleadings • Amended Complaint • Filing under Seal • Good Cause In re Yahoo! Inc. S’holders Litig., DeFAX Case No. D63278 (Del. Ch. June 2, 2008).
Defendants were not entitled to the continued filing of certain portions of the amended complaint under seal because they failed to show good cause, as required by Court of Chancery Rule 5(g). Motion to amend granted; unsealing of amended complaint ordered.
TORTS Medical Malpractice • Statute of Limitations • Constructive Knowledge • Medical Records Gross v. Schubert DeFAX Case No. D63282 (Del. Super. June 2, 2008).
Although plaintiff did not receive all of her medical records from defendants in a timely manner, her medical malpractice action was time-barred because plaintiff had constructive knowledge of her potential claim before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. Motion for summary judgment granted.
CIVIL PRACTICE Pleadings • Mirror-Image Rule • Identical Parties • Clear Intentions Gately v. Carey DeFAX Case No. D63281 (Del. Com. Pl. May 8, 2008).
Plaintiff did not violate the mirror-image rule where it was clear from the pleadings that plaintiff intended to include the same parties on appeal as were present in the court below. Motion to dismiss appeal denied.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION Termination of Benefits • Total Disability • Partial Disability • Calculation of Benefits Beck v. Walton Corp. DeFAX Case No. D63283 (IAB April 4, 2008).
While granting employer’s termination petition as it pertained to total disability benefits, the Industrial Accident Board determined that claimant, who worked for employer as a part-time, hourly employee, was entitled to partial disability benefits. Petition to terminate benefits granted in part, denied in part.
|