Opinion
Civil Action No. 9700-CB Civil Action No. 10449-CB
11-27-2019
RE: In re: TransPerfect Global, Inc. Elizabeth Elting v. Philip R. Shawe, et al.
Kevin R. Shannon, Esquire Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP 1313 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Jennifer C. Voss, Esquire Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP 920 North King Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Jeremy D. Eicher, Esquire Eicher Law LLC 1007 North Orange Street, 4th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Frank E. Noyes, II, Esquire Offit Kurman, P.A. 1201 N. Orange Suite, Suite 10E Wilmington, DE 19801
Kevin R. Shannon, Esquire
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
1313 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801 Jennifer C. Voss, Esquire
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher
& Flom LLP
920 North King Street, 7th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801 Jeremy D. Eicher, Esquire
Eicher Law LLC
1007 North Orange Street, 4th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801 Frank E. Noyes, II, Esquire
Offit Kurman, P.A.
1201 N. Orange Suite, Suite 10E
Wilmington, DE 19801 Dear Counsel:
Pending before the court is the second motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal that Respondents have filed within the past thirty days. This time, Respondents seek to appeal two orders the court entered on November 1, 2019 (the "Second Orders") arising out of the same dispute that was the subject of a Memorandum Opinion ("Opinion") and Order (the "First Order") issued on October 17, 2019.
On November 18, 2019, the court denied Respondents' motion to certify an interlocutory appeal of the Opinion and First Order (the "Interlocutory Order"). As explained in the Interlocutory Order, "the risk of piecemeal appeals is manifest" in this case. For this reason, the court expressed its view that an interlocutory appeal of the Opinion and the First Order and/or of the Second Orders made no sense until two other outstanding, directly-related matters had been adjudicated, namely "(i) the amount of the Contempt Fee Award and (ii) the resolution of any objections Respondents may make to the Fee Orders." Thereafter, a single interlocutory appeal of all those rulings could be taken together.
Dkt. 1410 ¶ 9.
Id. ¶¶ 9-10. --------
The court's calculus of the costs versus the benefits of an interlocutory appeal remains the same now as it did in the Interlocutory Order. Accordingly, for the reasons stated there, Respondents' motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal of the Second Orders is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
/s/ Andre G. Bouchard
Chancellor AGB/gm