Case Title: West v. Access Control Related Enterprises, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 12, 2021

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2021-02-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM WEST,  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
ACCESS CONTROL RELATED 
ENTERPRISES, LLC, LLR 
EQUITY PARTNERS, IV, L.P., LLR 
EQUITY PARTNERS PARALLEL 
IV, L.P., SETH LEHR, DAVID 
STIENES, GREG CASE, ROBERT 
CHEFITZ, and JOSEPH GRILLO, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 12, 2021 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court  
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N17C-11-137 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
  Submitted:    January 27, 2021 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:     
   February 15, 2021  
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
After careful consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the 
supplemental notices of interlocutory appeal, the exhibits to those notices, and a 
review of the Superior Court docket,1 it appears to the Court that: 
 
1 Review of this docket was necessary as the interlocutory appeal papers provided limited 
information about the nature and procedural background of the case. 
2 
 
(1) 
 The plaintiff below-appellant, William West, has petitioned this Court, 
under Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from the Superior Court’s bench 
ruling that denied West’s motion to maintain transfer order and to dismiss without 
prejudice.  This litigation arises from termination of the employment relationship 
between West and defendant below-appellee, Access Control Related Enterprises, 
LLC (“ACRE”), a Delaware limited liability company.  Defendants below-appellees 
LLR Equity Partners, IV L.P. and LLR Equity Partners Parallel, IV L.P. 
(collectively, “LLR”) are Delaware limited partnerships that invested in ACRE.  The 
individual defendants below-appellees are ACRE board members (collectively with 
ACRE and LLR, “Defendants”).  There were multiple agreements between the 
parties that included Delaware forum selection clauses. 
(2) 
West originally filed a complaint against Defendants in California state 
court.  After the California court stayed the litigation on forum non conveniens 
grounds as requested by Defendants,  West filed his complaint in the Superior Court 
in November 2017.2 West asserted claims for wrongful termination, breach of 
contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and a declaratory judgment.   
 
2 West first filed his complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, 
but voluntarily dismissed the case after Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter 
jurisdiction.   
3 
 
(3) 
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or, in the 
alterative, to transfer the case to the Court of Chancery.  On June 13, 2018, the 
Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim 
and transferred that claim to the Court of Chancery.  The Superior Court denied the 
motion to dismiss as to the remaining claims.  West voluntarily dismissed the breach 
of fiduciary duty claim without prejudice and filed an amended complaint asserting 
additional claims.  The parties proceeded with fact and expert discovery in the 
Superior Court.   
(4) 
In December 2019, Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss for 
lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer to the Court of 
Chancery.  On January 3, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to strike the demand for 
a jury trial.  On January 29, 2020, the Superior Court concluded that it was necessary 
to transfer the case to the Court of Chancery because resolution of the case would 
require interpretation of an agreement between the parties that included a forum 
selection clause specifying the United States District Court for the District of 
Delaware or the Court of Chancery.  The Superior Court found the motion to strike 
the jury demand moot in light of the transfer, and best resolved by the Court of 
Chancery. 
(5) 
West then filed a motion to lift the stay in California, arguing that it was 
necessary to preserve his right to a jury trial.  Defendants filed a notice of election 
4 
 
in the Superior Court to transfer the case to the Court of Chancery.  West filed a 
motion to stay the Superior Court proceedings pending resolution of his motion to 
lift the stay in California.  Defendants opposed the motion. 
(6) 
On July 29, 2020, the California court accepted West’s argument that 
transfer of the Superior Court case to the Court of Chancery would deprive him of 
his right to a jury trial and lifted the stay of the California proceedings.  Defendants 
advised the California court and the Superior Court that they would withdraw their 
request to transfer the case to the Court of Chancery and proceed with a jury trial in 
the Superior Court.  After an August 20, 2020 status conference with the parties, the 
Superior Court entered an order providing that: (i) any request to dismiss the case 
would be heard after the motion was filed; (ii) the Superior Court would continue to 
exercise jurisdiction over the case; and (iii) the Superior Court would schedule a jury 
trial at the earliest practicable date once jury trials resumed.  
(7) 
On August 31, 2020, West filed a motion to maintain the Superior 
Court’s transfer order and to dismiss the case without prejudice so he could proceed 
with a jury trial in his originally chosen jurisdiction of California.  Defendants 
opposed the motion.  On December 9, 2020, the Superior Court denied the motion 
to dismiss without prejudice.  The Superior Court relied on previous rulings that 
West had entered into agreements with Delaware forum selection clauses and found 
that it would be possible to have a jury trial in Delaware.   
5 
 
(8) 
On January 8, 2021, West filed an application for certification of an 
interlocutory appeal.  He argued that certification was appropriate because the 
Superior Court’s December 9, 2020 ruling satisfied all of the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria.  
On January 9, 2021, West filed a motion to extend the time to file an application for 
certification in the Superior Court until January 8, 2021.  He also asked for the 
Superior Court to make December 22, 2020 (the date upon which the parties received 
the transcript of the December 9, 2020 hearing) the effective date of the Superior 
Court’s December 9, 2020 ruling.  On January 12, 2021, the Superior Court granted 
West’s motion.  West filed his interlocutory appeal in this Court on January 9, 2021. 
(9) 
Defendants opposed West’s application for certification.  On January 
6, 2021, the Superior Court denied West’s application for certification.  The Superior 
Court concluded that denial of a voluntary motion dismiss in litigation that had been 
proceeding for several years did not determine a substantial issue of material 
importance.  The Superior Court also found that none of the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria 
were satisfied. 
(10) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of the Court.3  In the exercise of our discretion and giving due weight to 
the Superior Court’s denial of the application for certification, this Court has 
concluded that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the strict 
 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
6 
 
standards for certification under Supreme Court Rule 42(b).  Exceptional 
circumstances that would merit interlocutory review of the Superior Court’s 
interlocutory opinion do not exist in this case,4 and the potential benefits of 
interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs 
caused by an interlocutory appeal.5  The parties have litigated this matter in the 
Superior Court since late 2017, discovery is complete, and the matter is ready for a 
jury trial in the Superior Court as West desired in January 2020. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is 
REFUSED.  The filing fee paid by the appellant shall be applied to any future appeal 
he files from a final order entered in the case. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Chief Justice 
 
4 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 
5 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).