Title: Huatuco, M.D. v. Satellite Healthcare, et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AIBAR HUATUCO, M.D.,  
§ 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff-Below, 
§ 
 
Appellant, 
§ 
No. 5, 2014 
 
  
§ 
  
v.  
§ 
Court Below:   
 
 
§  
Court of Chancery of 
SATELLITE HEALTHCARE 
§ 
the State of Delaware 
 
§ 
C.A. No. 8465-VCG 
and 
§ 
 
§ 
SATELLITE DIALYSIS OF 
§ 
TRACY, LLC, 
§ 
 
 
§  
 
 
Defendants-Below, 
§ 
 
 
Appellees. 
§ 
 
 
 
Submitted:  June 4, 2014 
Decided:  June 5, 2014 
 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices.  
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 5th day of June 2014, after hearing oral argument and upon consideration of 
the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:  
(1) 
The appellant, Aibar Huatuco, a member of a limited liability company, Satellite 
Dialysis of Tracy, LLC, appeals the Court of Chancery’s determination that he had 
no right under the applicable LLC agreement to seek judicial dissolution.  Huatuco 
argues on appeal that 6 Del. C. § 18-802 provides members of LLCs with a non-
waivable right to seek judicial dissolution, regardless of any limitations on the 
2 
 
right to seek dissolution that may be contained in an LLC agreement.  That 
argument attempts to have this Court reach a different position on that question 
than was embraced by the Court of Chancery in R & R Capital, LLC v. Buck & 
Doe Run Valley Farms, LLC, nearly six years ago.1 
(2) 
As the appellee, Satellite Healthcare, points out, Huatuco did not fairly present this 
argument to the Court of Chancery, and thus we do not consider it here.2  Satellite 
Healthcare also argues correctly that several of Huatuco’s contractual arguments 
were not raised in the Court of Chancery.  For that reason, we do not consider 
them either. 
(3) 
Rather, we consider only the issue that Huatuco properly preserved below, which 
is the question of whether the Court of Chancery correctly interpreted the 
applicable LLC agreement to foreclose Huatuco from seeking a judicial 
dissolution.  After carefully considering the parties’ arguments on that issue, we 
affirm for the reasons set forth in the Court of Chancery’s thorough opinion,3 
which thoughtfully considered the key section of the LLC agreement addressing 
the rights of members — Section 2, and in particular Section 2.2 — in view of the 
overall language of LCC agreement,4 and reconciled its language with the other 
provisions of the LCC agreement dealing with dissolution (Section 8), matters 
                                                 
1 2008 WL 3846318 (Del. Ch. Aug. 19, 2008) (recognizing that the right to seek judicial 
dissolution is waivable by members of an LLC). 
2 See Supr. Ct. R. 8 (“Only questions fairly presented to the trial court may be presented for 
review . . . .”). 
3 2013 WL 6460898 (Del. Ch. Dec. 9, 2013). 
4 GMG Capital Invs., LLC v. Athenian Venture Partners I, L.P., 36 A.3d 776, 779 (Del. 2012); 
Alta Berkeley VI C.V. v. Omneon, Inc., 41 A.3d 381, 385-86 (Del. 2012). 
3 
 
requiring a supermajority vote (Section 3.4.15); the ability of members to 
withdraw (Section 2.6), and providing remedies if a member’s contractual rights 
are violated, which remedies included the ability to buy out the breaching 
member’s interest (Section 7.2 and Schedule 5).    
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 
Chancery is hereby AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice