Title: Bayer-Highland & Family Partnership, Ltd., et al. v. RF Capital Holdings, LLC, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 441, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 13, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BAYER-HIGHLAND FAMILY 
PARTNERSHIP, LTD, 2002 
SILVERSTEIN FAMILY 
PARTNERSHIP, LTD., JEFFREY 
A. BAYER and DAVID L. 
SILVERSTEIN,  
 
Plaintiffs and Counterclaim 
Defendants Below, 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
RF CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC, a 
Delaware LLC, f/k/a 
ROTENSTREICH FAMILY 
PARTNERSHIP, LTD., 
 
Defendant and Counterclaim 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 441, 2018 
§   
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. 2018-0206 
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  September 11, 2018 
 
 
 
 
   Decided:   September 13, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
 
Upon consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal and the supplemental 
notice of interlocutory appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiffs and counterclaim defendants below-appellants have 
petitioned this Court under Supreme Court Rule 42 to accept an interlocutory order 
from a Court of Chancery order, dated July 26, 2018, denying their motion to dismiss 
2 
 
the defendant and counterclaim plaintiff below-appellee’s breach of fiduciary duty 
claim.1  On August 27, 2018, the appellants filed an application for certification to 
take an interlocutory appeal.  The appellees opposed the application.  On September 
10, 2018, the Court of Chancery denied the application, finding that it was untimely 
and that the appellants had failed to demonstrate good cause to excuse their untimely 
application.  The Court of Chancery held that the parties’ involvement in settlement 
discussions did not constitute good cause to excuse the untimely application.    
(2) 
Having considered the Court of Chancery’s September 10, 2018 order, 
the Court agrees with the denial of the application for certification.  The application, 
which was filed on August 27, 2018, was untimely because it was filed more than 
ten days after the Court of Chancery’s July 26, 2018 order.2  The appellants did not 
establish good cause to excuse their untimely application. 
 
 
                                                 
1 On July 26, 2018, the Court of Chancery also granted in part the appellee’s motion for judgment 
on the pleadings as to the invalidity of the appellants’ actions relating to a merger.  The Court of 
Chancery granted the parties’ stipulation and order for entry of a final judgment under court of 
Chancery Rule 54(b) as to this ruling.  
2 Supr. Ct. R. 42(c)(i) (“Such application shall be served and filed within 10 days of the entry of 
the order from which the appeal is sought or such longer time as the trial court, in its discretion, 
may order for good cause shown.”). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice