Case Title: Langford v. Barnholt, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 221, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-04-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BENJAMIN LANGFORD, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 221, 2009 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Court of  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Chancery of the State of 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Delaware in and for New 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Castle County 
EDWARD W. BARNHOLT, H. 
§ 
RAYMOND BINGHAM, ROBERT §  
J. BOEHLKE, ROBERT T. BOND, § 
GARY E. DICKERSON, RICHARD § 
J. ELKUS, JR., DENNIS J. 
 
§  
  
FORTINO, STEPHEN P. 
 
 
§   
KAUFMAN, JOHN H. KISPERT, 
§  
KENNETH LEVY, MICHAEL E. 
§  
MARKS, ARTHUR P. SCHNITZER, §  
KENNETH L. SCHROEDER,  
§  
JON D. TOMPKINS, LIDA 
 
§  
URBANEK, and KLA-TENCOR 
§  
CORPORATION,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. 2295 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 16, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
April 27, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 27th day of April 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Benjamin Langford, has petitioned this 
Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42 (“Rule 42”), to appeal from the 
Court of Chancery’s interlocutory order of March 17, 2009, which lifted a 
 
2
stay imposed on August 13, 2008, dismissed count II of Langford’s amended 
complaint and then stayed the remainder of the action.  By order dated April 
14, 2009, the Court of Chancery denied Langford’s application for 
certification of the interlocutory appeal. 
 
 
(2) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional 
circumstances.*  The Court has examined the Court of Chancery’s March 17, 
2009 order according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42.  In the exercise of 
its discretion, the Court has concluded that exceptional circumstances such 
as would merit interlocutory review of the Court of Chancery’s order do not 
exist in this case.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                          
 
* Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b), (d)(v).