Title: Krahmer v. Christie's Incorporated
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 301, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 20, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHANNES R. KRAHMER and 
BETTY P. KRAHMER, 
 
Petitioners Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
CHRISTIE’S, INCORPORATED, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 301, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below-Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 606-N 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 15, 2006 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    June 20, 2006 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 20th day of June 2006, it appears to the Court that: 
  
(1) 
The petitioners-appellants, Johannes R. Krahmer and Betty P. 
Krahmer, have petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to 
appeal from the Court of Chancery’s interlocutory ruling on June 2, 2006, 
which denied the Krahmers’ motion to amend their petition for rescission 
filed against respondent-appellee, Christie’s, Incorporated, to add claims of 
mutual mistake of fact, negligent misrepresentation and/or constructive 
fraud.  The Court of Chancery found that the Krahmers’ proposed new 
causes of action were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and that 
 
2
the proposed amendment failed to state a claim of negligent 
misrepresentation as a matter of law.   
 
(2) 
On June 15, 2006, the Court of Chancery refused to certify an 
interlocutory appeal to this Court pursuant to Rule 42 on the grounds that its 
decision to deny the motion to amend did not satisfy the requirements for 
certification of an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 41 
and 42 and, moreover, “would likely result in the piecemeal appeal of 
factually and legally related issues and would be contrary to the interest of 
justice and the orderly procession of matters before this court.” 
 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional 
circumstances.*  We have examined the Court of Chancery’s June 2, 2006 
decision according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42.  In the exercise of its 
discretion, this Court has concluded that exceptional circumstances meriting 
interlocutory review of the decision of the Court of Chancery do not exist in 
this case. 
 
 
 
                                                 
*  Supr. Ct. R. 42(b). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Justice