Court Opinion

ID: 9388700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 15:02:59.199728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:21.950392
License: Public Domain

COURT OF CHANCERY
                                          OF THE
                                    STATE OF DELAWARE
KATHALEEN ST. J. MCCORMICK                                          LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
       CHANCELLOR                                                     500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400
                                                                     WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734

                                         April 21, 2023

          Kevin M. Coen                              Brock E. Czeschin
          Sara Toscano                               Angela Lam
          Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP       Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
          1201 North Market Street                   One Rodney Square
          Wilmington, DE 19801                       920 North King Street
                                                     Wilmington, DE 19801
          Daniel C. Herr
          Law Office of Daniel C. Herr LLC
          1225 North King Street
          Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801

                     Re:    EnVen Energy Corp. v. David M. Dunwoody, Jr. et al.,
                            C.A. No. 2019-0579-KSJM

      Dear Counsel:

               This letter opinion resolves the March 3, 2023 requests for leave to move for

      summary judgment filed by Defendants David M. Dunwoody, Jr. and Oilfield Pipe of

      Texas, LLC (“OPT”).1

               The requests arise out of an action brought by Plaintiff EnVen Energy Corp.

      (“EnVen”) challenging kickbacks that Dunwoody, Jr.’s father received from OPT for its

      sales to EnVen.      EnVen claims that Dunwoody, Jr., as EnVen’s president, actively

      concealed this kickback arrangement from EnVen’s board, causing EnVen to overpay for

      products from OPT to the benefit of Dunwoody, Jr. and his father.

      1
       See C.A. No. 2019-0579-KSJM, Docket (“Dkt.”) 181 (Dunwoody, Jr.’s Letter); Dkt.
      182 (OPT’s Letter).
C.A. No. 2019-0579-KSJM
April 21, 2023
Page 2 of 3

       “There is no right to a summary judgment.”2 “Even where the facts are not in

dispute, a court may decline to grant summary judgment where a more thorough

exploration of the facts is needed to properly apply the law to the circumstances.”3

“When an ultimate fact to be determined is one of motive, intention or other subjective

matter, summary judgment is ordinarily inappropriate.”4 The court may “decline to

decide the merits of the case in a summary adjudication where it is not reasonably certain

that there is no triable issue.”5 This court has refused requests for leave to file motions

for summary judgment where such proceedings “are apt to waste, rather than conserve,

the resources of the parties and the court.”6

2
  Stone & Paper Invs., LLC v. Blanch, 2020 WL 6373167, at *1 (Del. Ch. Oct. 30, 2020)
(quoting Telxon Corp. v. Meyerson, 802 A.2d 257, 262 (Del. 2002)) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
3
 In re Tri-Star Pictures, Inc., Litig., 1995 WL 106520, at *5 (Del. Ch. Mar. 9, 1995); see
also In re El Paso Pipeline P’rs, L.P. Deriv. Litig., 2014 WL 2768782, at *8 (Del. Ch.
June 12, 2014) (“[T]he court may, in its discretion, deny summary judgment if it decides
upon a preliminary examination of the facts presented that it is desirable to inquire into
and develop the facts more thoroughly at trial in order to clarify the law or its
application.”).
4
  Cont’l Oil Co. v. Pauley Petroleum, Inc., 251 A.2d 824, 826 (Del. 1969); see also
Amirsaleh v. Bd. of Trade of City of N.Y., Inc., 2009 WL 3756700, at *4 (Del. Ch. Nov. 9,
2009).
5
  Unbound P’rs Ltd. P’ship v. Invoy Hldgs. Inc., 251 A.3d 1016, 1024 (Del. Super. Ct.
2021) (Wallace, J.) (cleaned up) (quoting Parexel Int’l (IRL) Ltd. v. Xyomic Pharms.,
Inc., 2020 WL 5202083, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 1, 2020)) (interpreting parallel rule
of the Delaware Superior Court).
6
 Orloff v. Shulman, 2007 WL 1862742, at *1 (Del. Ch. June 20, 2007); see also Blanch,
2020 WL 6373167, at *1 (denying leave to file a motion for summary judgment filed in
“close proximity to trial” and where “any motion for partial summary judgment will not
obviate the need for trial”).
C.A. No. 2019-0579-KSJM
April 21, 2023
Page 3 of 3

       Motions for summary judgment typically require a court to dive deeply into a

paper record without the benefit of live witnesses explaining the significance of that

record. They require a tremendous investment of judicial resources. With trial and the

attendant benefits of live witness testimony scheduled for July 2023, arguments that

summary judgment motions might create efficiencies are tough to sell.             Still, I

acknowledge the potential benefits of summary judgment posed in the requests for leave,

and I approached the requests open to the possibility that those benefits may outweigh the

costs in this case.

       Under the circumstances, there are no good reasons to permit motions for

summary judgment here. As the requests themselves concede, even granting summary

judgment at this stage would not obviate the need for trial. This weighs against any

potential efficiencies. Further, my application of the law to this case would benefit from

a more thorough factual record. The motions speak to factually rife issues. And I am not

convinced that the issues raised are not triable. The requests for leave to move for

summary judgment are denied.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                         Sincerely,

                                         /s/ Kathaleen St. J. McCormick

                                         Chancellor

cc:    All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)