Title: Genelux Corporation v. Roeder, et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GENELUX CORPORATION and  
§ 
RONALD SIMUS, 
§ 
No. 631, 2015 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiffs Below- 
§ 
 
Cross-Appellees, 
§ 
Court Below:  Court of Chancery  
 
  
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
v.  
§ 
 
 
 
§  
C.A. No. 10042-VCM 
ALBERT ROEDER and BYRON  
§ 
GEORGIOU, 
§ 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below- 
§ 
Cross-Appellants, 
§ 
 
§ 
and 
§ 
 
§ 
DR. ALADAR SZALAY, 
§ 
 
§ 
Intervenor Below- 
§ 
Cross-Appellant. 
§ 
 
 
 
 
  
Submitted:   June 9, 2016 
Decided:   June 9, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and 
SEITZ, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc. 
 
 O R D E R 
This 9th day of June 2016, having considered this matter on the briefs, the 
plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the cross-appeal to show mootness, and the 
defendants’ response to that motion, we find it evident that:  Only one narrow issue 
remains on this cross-appeal, which is whether the Court of Chancery abused its 
2 
 
discretion by not awarding a more generous fee-shifting award to the defendants.  
The plaintiffs argue that even that issue is now moot because they have made a full 
payment of the financial amounts in controversy.  The only response to that 
contention is that this case presents one of the rare situations when this court 
should consider a moot dispute because the underlying issue is sufficiently 
important, will likely recur, and could evade review if we do not act now.  We 
disagree.  This cross-appeal now raises only a moot issue about whether the Court 
of Chancery properly exercised its case-specific discretion in applying settled 
principles of law.  There being no financial consequences left in controversy, the 
case is moot and the cross-appeal is dismissed on that basis.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice