Title: Ivize of Milwaukee, LLC v. Compex Litigation Support, LLC

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

PIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IVIZE OF MILWAUKEE, LLC, a 
§ 
Delaware Limited Liability Company, § 
No. 456, 2009 
and IVIZE OF KANSAS CITY, LLC, § 
 
a Delaware Limited Liability    
§ 
Court Below—Court of   
Company,  
 
 
 
§ 
Chancery of the State of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Delaware 
 
Plaintiffs Below,  
 
§ 
 
 
Appellants,  
 
 
§ 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
COMPEX LITIGATION SUPPORT, § 
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability 
§ 
Company, and COMPEX LEGAL 
§ 
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware   
§ 
Corporation, 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
C.A. Nos. 3158 and 3406 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 30, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
November 6, 2009 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 6th day of November 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On August 10, 2009, Ivize of Milwaukee, LLC, and Ivize of 
Kansas City, LLC (collectively “Ivize”), through counsel, filed a notice of 
appeal from a final order of the Court of Chancery in breach of contract 
actions that were tried together.  By Order dated September 23, 2009, Ivize’s 
counsel was granted leave to withdraw. 
 
2
 
(2) 
By letter dated September 23, 2009, the Clerk of this Court 
informed Ivize’s representatives, Michael L. Rogers and Jonathan K. 
Cignetti, that a corporation must be represented by counsel in proceedings 
before the Court.1  The Clerk instructed Rogers and Cignetti to have counsel 
enter an appearance on behalf of Ivize on or before October 6, 2009 in 
default of which a notice to show cause would issue.2  Neither Rogers nor 
Cignetti responded to the Clerk’s letter. 
 
(3) 
On October 9, 2009, the Clerk issued a notice directing that 
Rogers and Cignetti show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for 
their failure to have counsel enter an appearance on behalf of Ivize.  Neither 
Rogers nor Cignetti filed a response to the notice to show cause, and counsel 
has not entered an appearance on Ivize.  Rogers’ and Cignetti’s failure to 
respond to the Clerk’s notice to show cause is deemed to be their consent to 
the dismissal of this appeal.3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is 
DISMISSED pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice 
                                          
 
1 Transpolymer Indus., Inc. v. Chapel Main Corp., 1990 WL 168276 (Del. Supr.). 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b). 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 3(b)(2)(b).