Title: Next Level Communications, Inc. et al. v. Motorala, Inc. Feldman et al. v. Norris et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
NEXT LEVEL COMMUNICATIONS, 
§ 
INC., a Delaware corporation, NEXT   
§ 
LEVEL PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware 
§  No. 106, 2003 
limited liability company, SPENCER  
§ 
SEGURA, and JACQUELINE SEGURA, 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiffs Below,  
 
§ 
 
 
Appellants,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
MOTOROLA, INC., a Delaware 
 
§ 
corporation,  
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
BARRY FELDMAN, ROBERT  
 
§ 
BRUCKNER, FISHOFF FAMILY 
 
§ 
FOUNDATION, and MARY GORTON, 
§  No. 107, 2003 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiffs Below,  
 
§ 
 
 
Appellants,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
J. MICHAEL NORRIS, GRAY BENOIST, § 
WALTER CLAY, EUGENE DELANEY, 
§ 
ALEX GOOD, CRAIG KORNBLAUE, 
§ 
PAUL LATCHFORD, MOTOROLA,  
§ 
INC., and NEXT LEVEL  
 
 
§ 
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellants.  
 
 
§ 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
2
O R D E R 
 
 
This 27th day of February 2003, it appears to the Court that: 
 
1) 
The appellants in each of the above-captioned causes of action 
have filed applications for this Court to accept each case for interlocutory 
review on an expedited basis.   
 
2) 
The Court of Chancery declined to certify either case for 
interlocutory review.  This Court has considered the consolidated opinion of 
the Court of Chancery on the merits, the bench ruling of the Court of 
Chancery declining to certify either matter for interlocutory review, and the 
submissions to this Court by the parties.   
 
3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are accepted only in extraordinary 
circumstances.  In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded 
that the applications for interlocutory review do not meet the requirements of 
Supreme Court Rule 42 and should be refused.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that both 
applications for interlocutory review in this matter be, and the same are 
hereby, REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice