Case Title: MICH II Holdings LLC, et al. v. Rubin Schron, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 412, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-08-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MICH II HOLDINGS LLC, SEEVA 
II HOLDINGS LLC, MICH 
HOLDINGS LLC, and SEEVA 
HOLDINGS LLC,  
 
Plaintiffs Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
RUBIN SCHRON and CAM-ELM 
COMPANY LLC, 
 
           Defendants Below- 
Appellees 
 
and 
 
SMV PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC 
and SWC PROPERTY HOLDINGS 
LLC,  
 
          Nominal Defendants Below- 
          Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 412, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below-Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. 6840 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: August 9, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 10, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 10th day of August 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiffs-appellants, MICH II Holdings LLC, SEEVA II 
Holdings LLC, MICH Holdings LLC, and SEEVA Holdings LLC (the 
 
2
“appellants”), have petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
42, to accept an appeal from the interlocutory order of the Court of Chancery 
dated June 29, 2012, which granted the defendants-appellees’ motion to stay 
this action pending the conclusion of litigation in New York. 
 
(2) 
The appellants filed their application for certification to take an 
interlocutory appeal in the Court of Chancery on July 9, 2012.  On August 7, 
2012, the Court of Chancery denied the certification application on the 
ground that the requirements of Rule 42 had not been met. 
 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court.  In the exercise of its discretion, the Court has 
concluded that the appellants’ application for interlocutory review fails to 
meet the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42 and, therefore, should be 
refused. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal 
is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice