Case Title: 3850 & 3860 Colonial Blvd., LLC v. Griffin & Rubicon Media, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 124, 2015

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
3850 & 3860 COLONIAL BLVD., LLC, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CHRISTOPHER E. GRIFFIN and 
RUBICON MEDIA, INC., 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 124, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  C.A. No. 9575-VCN 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 30, 2015 
  Decided: May 1, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 1st day of May 2015, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, 3850 & 3860 Colonial Blvd., LLC 
(“Colonial”), has petitioned this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an 
appeal from an interlocutory letter opinion and order of the Court of Chancery 
dated February 26, 2015 (“Letter Opinion”).  The Letter Opinion stayed Colonial’s 
breach of fiduciary duty action pending arbitration, in accordance with an 
arbitration provision in the limited liability company agreement of its predecessor 
entity, Rubicon Media LLC (“the LLC”).  The Letter Opinion noted that, although 
the LLC’s sole director Christopher Griffin had later converted the LLC into a 
 
 
-2- 
corporation, Colonial’s fiduciary duty claims arose from a transaction entered into 
by the LLC. 
(2) 
Colonial filed its application for certification to take an interlocutory 
appeal in the Court of Chancery on March 9, 2015.  The Court of Chancery denied 
the certification application on March 30, 2015.  In denying certification, the Court 
of Chancery noted that although the facts of the case are unusual, the Letter 
Opinion, which stayed Colonial’s action to allow the arbitration forum to resolve 
the question of who should decide the dispute, did not go to the actual merits of 
any claims and applied well-settled law.  The case thus did not present 
extraordinary or exceptional circumstances to warrant certification of an 
interlocutory appeal. 
(3) 
We agree with the Vice Chancellor’s rationale.  Applications for 
interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court.  In the 
exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded, for the reasons stated by the 
Court of Chancery, that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the 
requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within 
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
-3- 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
Chief Justice