Genelux Corporation v. Roeder ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
GENELUX CORPORATION and §
RONALD SIMUS, § No. 631, 2015
§
Plaintiffs Below- §
Cross-Appellees, § Court Below: Court of Chancery
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ C.A. No. 10042-VCM
ALBERT ROEDER and BYRON §
GEORGIOU, §
§
Defendants Below- §
Cross-Appellants, §
§
and §
§
DR. ALADAR SZALAY, §
§
Intervenor Below- §
Cross-Appellant. §
Submitted: June 9, 2016
Decided: June 9, 2016
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and
SEITZ, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.
ORDER
This 9th day of June 2016, having considered this matter on the briefs, the
plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the cross-appeal to show mootness, and the
defendants’ response to that motion, we find it evident that: Only one narrow issue
remains on this cross-appeal, which is whether the Court of Chancery abused its
discretion by not awarding a more generous fee-shifting award to the defendants.
The plaintiffs argue that even that issue is now moot because they have made a full
payment of the financial amounts in controversy. The only response to that
contention is that this case presents one of the rare situations when this court
should consider a moot dispute because the underlying issue is sufficiently
important, will likely recur, and could evade review if we do not act now. We
disagree. This cross-appeal now raises only a moot issue about whether the Court
of Chancery properly exercised its case-specific discretion in applying settled
principles of law. There being no financial consequences left in controversy, the
case is moot and the cross-appeal is dismissed on that basis. IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
2