Title: Avantor, Inc. v. Centrella
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 99, 2024
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 25, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AVANTOR, INC.,  
 
Counterclaim-Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
MARC J. CENTRELLA, 
 
Counterclaim-Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 99, 2024 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court  
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N23C-10-200 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:    March 6, 2024 
   Decided:       April 25, 2024 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Upon consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal and the exhibits 
attached thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
This interlocutory appeal arises from a Superior Court order, dated 
February 5, 2024, denying Avantor, Inc’s motion to dismiss one of two 
counterclaims brought by a former employee, Marc J. Centrella.  After Avantor filed 
an action against Centrella in the Court of Chancery to enforce post-employment 
restrictive covenants and to enjoin him from working for non-party Waters, Inc., 
Waters rescinded its offer of employment to Centrella.  Centrella asserted 
counterclaims against Avantor, seeking a declaratory judgment that the restrictive 
covenants were unenforceable and pleading a claim for tortious interference with 
2 
 
prospective business relations.  The parties stipulated to dismissal of Avantor’s 
claims.  Avantor then answered Centrella’s declaratory judgment claim and moved 
to dismiss his tortious interference claim based on the absolute litigation privilege.  
On October 11, 2023, the Court of Chancery dismissed Centrella’s counterclaims, 
with leave to transfer under 10 Del. C. § 1902, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.   
(2) 
Centrella elected to transfer his counterclaims to the Superior Court.  
On February 5, 2024, the Superior Court held a hearing on Avantor’s motion to 
dismiss Centrella’s tortious interference claim.  The Superior Court denied the 
motion to dismiss at the end of the hearing, concluding that it was unable to 
determine from the pleadings whether the absolute litigation privilege applied to all 
of Avantor’s pre-litigation statements and therefore it was reasonably conceivable 
Centrella could recover on his tortious interference claim.    
(3) 
On February 15, 2024, Avantor filed a timely application for 
certification of an interlocutory appeal.  Centrella opposed the application.  On 
March 5, 2024, the Superior Court entered an order denying Avantor’s application.1  
In denying certification, the court first found that the interlocutory ruling did not 
determine a substantial issue of material importance meriting interlocutory review 
because there was no final determination concerning the applicability of the absolute 
 
1 Centrella v. Avantor, Inc., 2024 WL 889259 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 1, 2024).  The order is dated 
March 1, 2024, but the order was docketed on March 5, 2024. 
3 
 
litigation privilege.2  The court next considered the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria identified 
by Avantor as supporting certification.  As to Rule 42(b)(iii)(B) (conflicting trial 
court decisions on the question of law), the court found that the interlocutory ruling, 
which denied a motion to dismiss after finding that further development of the record 
was necessary to determine the applicability of the absolute litigation privilege, did 
not conflict with trial court decisions granting motions to dismiss after determination 
that the absolute litigation privilege did apply.3  The Superior Court rejected 
Avantor’s reliance on Rule 42(b)(iii)(G) (review of the interlocutory ruling may 
terminate the litigation), emphasizing that Centrella’s declaratory judgment claim 
remained and Avantor’s position that this claim could be resolved by its filing of 
another motion was speculative.4  Finally, the court found that Rule 42(b)(iii)(H) 
(review of the interlocutory order may serve considerations of justice) did not weigh 
in favor of certification because Avantor was not foreclosed from asserting the 
absolute litigation privilege after further development of the record.5 
(4) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of this Court.6  In the exercise of its discretion and giving due weight to 
Superior Court’s analysis, the Court has concluded that the application for 
 
2 Id. at *3-4. 
3 Id. at *4. 
4 Id. 
5 Id. 
6 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
4 
 
interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards  for certification under Rule 
42(b).  We agree with the Superior Court that the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria do not weigh 
in favor of interlocutory review.  In addition, the potential benefits of interlocutory 
review do not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by 
an interlocutory appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is 
REFUSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice