Plateau Data Services, LLC v. Adchemy, Inc. ( 2018 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
PLATEAU DATA SERVICES, LLC and §
ZETA INTERACTIVE, formerly known §
as XL MARKETING CORP., § No. 83, 2018
§
Defendants Below- §
Appellants, § Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ C.A. No. N15C-03-096
ADCHEMY, INC., §
§
Plaintiff Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: February 16, 2018
Decided: March 2, 2018
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
This 2nd day of March 2018, upon consideration of the notice of interlocutory
appeal, it appears that:
(1) The defendants below, Plateau Data Services, LLC and Zeta Interactive
(collectively, “Plateau”), have petitioned this Court under Supreme Court Rule 42
to accept an interlocutory appeal from a memorandum opinion of the Superior Court
dated December 19, 2017 (“the Memorandum Opinion”). The Memorandum
Opinion granted plaintiff Adchemy, Inc’s motion in limine to preclude Plateau from
presenting evidence at trial relating to consequential or opportunity cost damages or
the loss of anticipated or future business profits. The Superior Court concluded that
all of Plateau’s counterclaims, in substance, alleged breaches of representations and
warranties and that, under the clear terms of the parties’ agreement, indemnification
was the exclusive remedy. Plateau filed a motion for reargument, which the Superior
Court denied on January 18, 2018.
(2) Plateau filed an application for certification in the Superior Court to
take an interlocutory appeal of the Memorandum Opinion on January 29, 2018.
Plateau argued that its application met the criteria of Rule 42 because the
Memorandum Opinion decided a substantial issue of material importance. Plateau
also argued that the Memorandum Opinion reversed the Superior Court’s earlier
ruling that it would not consider untimely motions for summary judgment disguised
as motions in limine. Plateau also argued that interlocutory review may substantially
reduce the litigation and otherwise serve considerations of justice. Adchemy filed
its response in opposition on February 6, 2018.
(3) The Superior Court denied the certification application on February 14,
2018. In denying certification, the Superior Court acknowledged that the
Memorandum Opinion decided a substantial issue of material importance. The
Superior Court also noted that the motion in limine was partially dispositive and thus
untimely under the court’s prior ruling. But, the Superior Court rejected Plateau’s
contention that the Memorandum Opinion “reversed or set aside a prior decision of
the trial court” under Rule 42(b)(iii)(E) because the legal issue presented—the
2
contract interpretation regarding available damages—was not contrary to any of the
court’s prior decisions. The Superior Court noted that it had discretion to address
the substance of the untimely motion before trial in the interests of judicial economy
and to enable the parties to efficiently prepare for trial. The Superior Court
concluded that certification was not warranted because interlocutory review would
not substantially reduce further litigation or otherwise serve considerations of
justice.
(4) We agree that interlocutory review is not warranted in this case.
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this
Court. In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that the application
for interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under
Supreme Court Rule 42(b). The case is not exceptional,1 and the potential benefits
of interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable
costs caused by an interlocutory appeal.2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is
REFUSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
1
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii)
2
Id. 42(b)(iii).
3