Case Title: Chilian v. BRP Hold OX, LLC, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2019-02-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM CHILIAN,  
 
Defendant/Counterclaim 
Plaintiff-Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
BRP HOLD OX, LLC and  
TDBBS, LLC, 
 
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim 
Defendants-Below, 
Appellees. 
§   
§  No. 12, 2019 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court  
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N18C-04-116 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 14, 2019 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
February 25, 2019 
Corrected: February 27, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
After considering the notice and supplemental notice of appeal from 
interlocutory orders under Supreme Court Rule 42, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
This interlocutory appeal arises from a Superior Court order, dated 
October 31, 2018, dismissing William Chilian’s counterclaims against BRP Hold 
OX, LLC and TDBBS, LLC (collectively, “BRP”),1 and a Superior Court order, 
dated December 6, 2018, denying Chilian’s motion for reargument.2  After BRP sued 
                                                 
1 BRP Hold Ox, LLC v. Chilian, 2018 WL 5734648 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 31, 2018).   
2 BRP Hold Ox, LLC v. Chilian, 2018 WL 6432978 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 6, 2018). 
2 
 
Chilian, a former member and executive, for breaching his non-compete obligations, 
Chilian filed counterclaims against BRP for tortious interference with his 
employment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and a declaratory judgment.  
The Superior Court held that the absolute litigation privilege barred the tortious 
interference claim, Chilian failed to meet all of the requirements for a malicious 
prosecution claim, Chilian failed to state a claim for abuse of process, and the 
declaratory judgment claim was unnecessary as it would be resolved by BRP’s 
claims.3  
(2) 
On December 17, 2018, Chilian filed an application for certification of 
an interlocutory appeal.  Chilian argued that the Superior Court decision conflicted 
with a Court of Chancery decision, Soterion Corp. v. Soteria Mezzanine Corp.,4 and 
an interlocutory appeal would serve the considerations of justice because Chilian 
deserved to have his day in court for the harm he suffered as a result of BRP’s 
actions.  BRP opposed the application.   
(3) 
On January 14, 2019, the Superior Court denied the application for 
certification.5  Applying the Rule 42 criteria, the Superior Court found that the 
decision was not in conflict with Soterion.6  As to Chilian’s contention that 
                                                 
3 BRP, 2018 WL 5734648, at *2-7. 
4 2012 WL 5378251 (Del. Ch. 2012). 
5 BRP Hold Ox, LLC v. Chilian, 2019 WL 181500 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 14, 2019). 
6 Id. at *2. 
3 
 
interlocutory review would serve the considerations of justice, the Superior Court 
found that Chilian would have the opportunity to defend himself against BRP’s 
claims.7  The Superior Court held it was not clear the benefits of interlocutory review 
outweighed the probable costs and that Chilian had failed to demonstrate 
interlocutory review was in the interests of justice.8    
(4) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of the Court.9  We defer to the Superior Court’s well-stated balancing of 
the relevant considerations.  As the Superior Court found, the tension between its 
ruling and that of the Court of Chancery in Soterion is not as stark as the appellant 
portrays, and can be viewed as primarily involving their different factual 
circumstances, not a difference in law.  More important to us, the trial judge is best 
positioned to assess whether the costs of an interlocutory review justify the 
inefficiency of departing from the usual approach of presenting all appellate issues 
at one time after a final order has been entered.  We defer to his view that he lacked 
confidence that interlocutory review would have more benefit than cost. 
                                                 
7 Id. at *3. 
8 Id.  
9 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice