Opinion ID: 1537763
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trustee Abjures Substitution

Text: On May 11, 2006, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute. On May 16, 2006, an attorney entered his appearance on behalf of the Original Plaintiffs. Although the same attorney also represented the Trustee, no action was taken to add or substitute the Creditor Trust as a party in the Court of Chancery. In correspondence dated May 17, 2006, counsel for defendants advised the attorney who had entered his appearance on behalf of plaintiffs, that substitution of the Trustee for Ingersoll appeared to be appropriate. The defendants agreed not to oppose a motion for substitution, so long as it was in acceptable form and comported with the terms of the Joint Plan. In correspondence dated May 27, 2006, the attorney who had entered his appearance for the Original Plaintiffs, and who also represented the Trustee, indicated he needed further time to discuss and evaluate the issues raised by a substitution. The record reflects that the Trustee never sought to be substituted or joined as a party. When the procedural posture resulting from the Trustee's failure to seek to be substituted or joined as a party was raised in the Court of Chancery, the attorney who represented both the Original Plaintiffs and the Trustee responded that a decision had been made to proceed under Chancery Court Rule 25(c) which provides that in case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the Court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. [5] Accordingly, this action continued to be prosecuted in the Court of Chancery by the Original Plaintiffs (the Gaylords), notwithstanding the prosecution authority of the Trustee that was conferred by Ingersoll's Joint Plan.