Opinion ID: 1443950
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Court of Chancery acted within its discretion when it declined to award relief for ALF's website.

Text: We review a trial court's decision on whether to award declaratory relief for abuse of discretion. [33] The Court of Chancery accepted as true that ALF at one time managed an email server that facilitated receipt by Lorillard employees of emails with expletives and that Lorillard quickly and effectively erected a filter blocking the emails for under $1,000. The Court then stated that these emails were personal attacks on individual employees in violation of Subsection VI(h). [34] Lorillard had a direct claim for requested monetary damages for its cost of blocking the emails was contained within Count V of its amended counterclaims (Trespass to Chattel) but this claim was dismissed by the Vice Chancellor for failure to prosecute. [35] The Vice Chancellor did not award injunctive relief because the web site function allowing the emails to be sent had been removed. Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, [t]he court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, will not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding. [36] No tobacco company employee who received the emails participated in this case. We conclude that on the record presented, the Court of Chancery acted well within its discretion when it declined to award declaratory, injunctive or monetary relief to Lorillard for the defunct ALF website activities which were directed to tobacco company employees.