Title: Bradley v. First Interstate Bancorp, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 21, 2000

Bradley v. First Interstate Bancorp, et al. Annotate this Case Download PDF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE TIMOTHY W. BRADLEY, individually and as Class representative for the non-moot claims of the certified class, § § § § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellant, § No. 445, 1999 § v. § Court Below: Court of Chancery § of the State of Delaware in and FIRST INTERSTATE BANCORP, § for New Castle County EDWARD M. CARSON, WILLIAM§ C.A. No. 14623 S. RANDALL, WILLIAM E.B. § SIART, JOHN E. BRYSON, JEWEL§ PLUMMER COBB, RALPH P. § DAVIDSON, MYRON duBAIN, § DON C. FRISBEE, GEORGE M. § KELLER, THOMAS L. LEE, § WILLIAM F. MILLER, STEVEN B.§ SAMPLE, FORREST N. § SHUMWAY, RICHARD J. § STEGEMEIER, DANIEL M. § TELLEP, AND FIRST BANK § SYSTEM, INC., § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. § Submitted: March 14, 2000 Decided: March 21, 2000 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and BERGER, Justices. ORDER This 21st day of March 2000, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and oral argument, the Court concludes that, in ruling that Plaintiff Below-Appellant had pleaded derivative claims, the Court of Chancery correctly applied the standards announced by this Court in Kramer v. Western Pacific Indus., Del. Supr., 546 A.2d 348, 354 (1988) and Parnes v. Bally Entertainment Corp., Del. Supr., 722 A.2d 1243, 1245 (1999). Accordingly, Appellant lacks standing to assert those claims. See Lewis v. Anderson, Del. Supr., 477 A.2d 1040 (1984). We further conclude that Appellant s California state law claims are exclusively controlled by Delaware law under the internal affairs doctrine. See McDermott, Inc. v. Lewis, Del. Supr., 531 A.2d 206, 215 (1987). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: s/Joseph T. Walsh Justice 2