Title: Lee, et al. v. Choice Hotels International, Inc., et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 162, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 21, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHAN YOUNG LEE, a minor, by 
his parents and guardians ad litem, 
BO HYUN LEE and WAN KI KIM, 
BO HYUN LEE, individually, WAN 
KI KIM, individually, and YOUNG 
MIN LEE, a minor, by his parents 
and guardians ad litem, BO HYUN 
LEE and WAN KI KIM, 
 
Plaintiffs Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
CHOICE HOTELS 
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a 
Delaware Corporation d/b/a 
QUALITY INNS AND RESORTS,  
 
          Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 162, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 02C-10-280 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
     Submitted: April 18, 2011 
        Decided: April 21, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 21st day of April 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiffs-appellants, Chan Young Lee et al. (the 
“appellants”), have petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
42, to accept an appeal from the interlocutory order of the Superior Court 
dated March 9, 2011, which granted the motion in limine of the defendant-
 
2
appellee, Choice Hotels International, Inc., to exclude from trial Regulation 
No. 61 of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Indonesia regarding 
health requirements of swimming pools and public baths.    
 
(2) 
The appellants filed their application for certification to take an 
interlocutory appeal in the Superior Court on March 14, 2011.  On April 18, 
2011, the Superior Court denied the application for certification on the 
ground that the requirements of Rule 42 had not been met. 
 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court.  In the exercise of its discretion, the Court has 
concluded that the appellants’ application for interlocutory review fails to 
meet the requirements of Rule 42 and, therefore, should be refused. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal 
is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice