Court Opinion

ID: 9387039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-14 16:03:41.453387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:10.817140
License: Public Domain

COURT OF CHANCERY
                                         OF THE
                                   STATE OF DELAWARE
PAUL A. FIORAVANTI, JR.                                             LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
  VICE CHANCELLOR                                                      500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400
                                                                      WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734

                                          April 14, 2023

   Daniel A. Mason, Esquire                       Martin S. Lessner, Esquire
   Elizabeth Wang, Esquire                        Caleb G. Johnson, Esquire
   Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &                Young Conaway Stargatt &
   Garrison LLP                                   Taylor, LLP
   500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200                 1000 North King Street
   Wilmington, Delaware 19801                     Wilmington, Delaware 19801

                                                  J. Clayton Athey, Esquire
                                                  Jason W. Rigby, Esquire
                                                  Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A.
                                                  1310 North King Street
                                                  Wilmington, Delaware 19801

                 Re:      Ares Special Situations Fund IV, L.P. et al. v. Mastec, Inc. et al.,
                          C.A. No. 2022-1130-PAF

  Dear Counsel:

          I have reviewed the recent motions and exhibits and the parties’ emails to my

  judicial assistant. If the objective was to get the court’s attention, the parties have

  succeeded. The chippy emails between counsel are disheartening. It is apparent that

  judicial intervention is necessary.

          There are several pending motions, some fully briefed, some not. Having

  assessed the situation, the court has determined as follows:
Ares Special Situations Fund IV, L.P. v. Mastec, Inc.,
C.A. No. 2022-1130-PAF
April 14, 2023
Page 2 of 5

      1. The Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

          under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(1) is denied. There is an obvious

          statutory basis for subject matter jurisdiction under 8 Del. C. § 111.

          Defendants’ argument that Section 111 jurisdiction is discretionary is

          without merit. See S’holder Representative Servs. LLC v. DC Cap. P’rs

          Fund II, L.P., 2022 WL 439011, at *6 (Del. Ch. Feb. 14, 2022). Indeed,

          former Vice Chancellor Lamb described such an argument as “essentially

          frivolous.” Dawson v. Pittco Cap. P’rs, L.P., C.A. No. 3148-VCL, at *36

          (Del. Ch. Dec. 7, 2007) (TRANSCRIPT). To the extent I am wrong and

          the statute provides a discretionary basis for jurisdiction, I exercise my

          discretion in favor of maintaining jurisdiction over this case in the

          Delaware Court of Chancery.1

      2. The April 11, 2023 scheduling order is hereby vacated.

      3. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Court of

          Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) shall proceed as follows:

1
  Nothing herein should be read as eliminating the possibility of this court appointing a
member of the Complex Commercial Litigation Division of the Delaware Superior Court
to sit by designation to preside over this action. See In re Designation of Actions Filed
Pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 111 (Del. Feb. 23, 2023) (ORDER); Uptake Techs., Inc. v.
1000330811 Ontario, Inc., C.A. No. 2023-0245-AML (Del. Ch. Mar. 2, 2023).
Ares Special Situations Fund IV, L.P. v. Mastec, Inc.,
C.A. No. 2022-1130-PAF
April 14, 2023
Page 3 of 5

             a. Defendants’ opposition shall be served and filed on or before May

                1, 2023.

             b. Plaintiffs’ reply shall be served and filed on or before May 12, 2023.

             c. The court will advise the parties whether argument is necessary to

                resolve the motion.

      4. Briefing on the merits of Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion is suspended

         pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ motion to strike.

      5. Defendants’ second motion to stay discovery is denied. Any delay by

         Defendants in providing discovery constitutes a violation of the court’s

         March 27, 2023 orders that denied the first motion to stay discovery and

         granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel.

      6. Having reviewed the correspondence between the parties, the court has

         determined that specific discovery deadlines must be imposed. Discovery

         as to all pending discovery requests shall proceed as follows and shall not

         be subject to modification by the parties absent leave of court:

             a. Responses to all pending discovery requests shall be served and filed

                upon (i) the deadlines provided for in the Court of Chancery Rules
Ares Special Situations Fund IV, L.P. v. Mastec, Inc.,
C.A. No. 2022-1130-PAF
April 14, 2023
Page 4 of 5

                or, (ii) if the deadline provided for in the Court of Chancery Rules

                has passed, then ten days from the date of this order.

             b. The parties shall meet and confer over search terms for

                electronically stored information and document custodians within

                five days of this order. Each side shall run the search terms and

                provide hit reports within 30 days after the date of this order.

             c. The parties shall meet and confer over hit reports and, if necessary,

                provide refined search terms, within 10 days after delivery of the

                initial hit report.

             d. All responsive documents to the discovery requests, as narrowed

                herein, shall be produced on or before June 20, 2023.

             e. Privilege logs shall be served on or before July 15, 2023.

      7. The parties shall not call or send any emails to my judicial assistant for any

         reason except for a true emergency. All requests for judicial action shall

         be by motion. Joint requests may be submitted by letter. Any violation of

         this paragraph shall be deemed to be contempt of court and counsel that

         violates the order will be held personally liable for any monetary sanction

         that the court imposes for violating this paragraph.
Ares Special Situations Fund IV, L.P. v. Mastec, Inc.,
C.A. No. 2022-1130-PAF
April 14, 2023
Page 5 of 5

      8. The court strongly encourages counsel to temper the rhetoric in their

         emails to each other and in their submissions to the court.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                       /s/ Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr.
                                       Vice Chancellor