Title: Curran Composities, Inc. v. Total Holdings USA, Inc.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CURRAN COMPOSITES, INC. and 
C-TWO, LLC,  
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
TOTAL HOLDINGS USA, INC. 
and TOTAL COMPOSITES, INC., 
 
Plaintiffs Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 650, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below-Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  C.A. No. 4494 
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 18, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: November 25, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 25th day of November 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendants-appellants, Curran Composites, Inc. and C-
Two, LLC (“Curran”), have petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 42, to appeal from the Court of Chancery’s interlocutory ruling 
on October 9, 2009, which denied Curran’s motion to dismiss the complaint 
filed by the plaintiffs-appellees, Total Holdings USA, Inc. and Total 
Composites, Inc., on jurisdictional grounds.   
 
(2) 
Orally on November 9, 2009, and in a written order on 
November 17, 2009, the Court of Chancery denied Curran’s application for 
 
2 
certification of the interlocutory appeal on the grounds that the denial of a 
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction does not establish a legal 
right or determine a substantial issue under Rule 42, and the interlocutory 
ruling is consistent with prior Delaware precedent.   
 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional 
circumstances.1  We have examined the Court of Chancery’s October 9, 
2009 order according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42.  In the exercise of 
its discretion, this Court has concluded that such exceptional circumstances 
as would merit interlocutory review of the decision of the Court of Chancery 
do not exist in this case. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b).