Court Opinion

ID: 9892422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 19:05:39.805393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:52.729433
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    In re: TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL,            )
    INC.                                   )       C.A. No. 9700-CM
                                           )
                                           )
    ELIZABETH ELTING,                      )
                                           )
               Petitioner,                 )
                                           )
        v.                                 )       C.A. No. 10449-CM
                                           )
    PHILIP R. SHAWE and SHIRLEY            )
    SHAWE,                                 )
                                           )
               Respondents,                )
                                           )
        and                                )
                                           )
TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC.,                 )
                                           )
               Nominal Party.              )

             ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF
                         INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

        1.     TransPerfect   Global,   Inc.      (“TransPerfect”)   has   applied   (the

“Application”) for certification of interlocutory appeal of this court’s August 7, 2023

letter decision (the “August 7 Decision”), August 16, 2023 implementing order (the

“August 16 Order”), and September 22, 2023 letter decision (the “September 22

Decision,” and collectively, the “Decisions”).1

1  C.A. No. 9700-CM, Docket (“Dkt.”) 1782, Application for Certification of
Interlocutory Appeal; In re TransPerfect Global, Inc., 2023 WL 5017248 (Del. Ch. Aug.
7, 2023) (Aug. 7 Decision); Dkt. 1766 (Aug. 16 Order); In re TransPerfect Global, Inc.,
2023 WL 6387785 (Del. Ch. Sept. 22, 2023) (Sept. 22 Decision). Civil Action Numbers
9700-CM and 10449-CM have been litigated in a coordinated fashion since their
inception. Docket entries cited in this decision refer to C.A. No. 9700-CM.
       2.     The August 7 Decision overruled in large part TransPerfect’s objections

to Former Custodian Robert Pincus’s fee petitions for legal expenses incurred

between January 2021 and March 2023.2 The August 16 Order implemented the

August 7 Decision.3 The September 22 Decision denied TransPerfect’s motions for

reargument, clarification, entry of final judgment, and stay pending appeal.4

       3.     Supreme Court Rule 42 governs applications for interlocutory appeals,

requiring that they be filed within “10 days of the entry of the order from which the

appeal is sought” and establishing a two-step test for determining whether to certify

interlocutory appeal.5      Rule 42 cautions that “[i]nterlocutory appeals should be

exceptional, not routine, because they disrupt the normal procession of litigation,

cause delay, and can threaten to exhaust scarce party and judicial resources.” 6 This

language from Rule 42 serves as an interpretive principle, requiring that the court

interpret the factors such that interlocutory appeals are the exception and not the

routine.7

       4.     TransPerfect’s application fails under Rule 42 because it was not filed

within ten days of the September 22 Decision. As computed under Supreme Court

2 Aug. 7 Decision, at *6.

3 Aug. 16 Order at 1.

4 Sept. 22 Decision, at *2–4.

5 Supr. Ct. R. 42(c)(i).

6 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii).

7 See also Supr. Ct. R. 42(b) (stating that “[i]f the balance is uncertain, the trial court

should refuse to certify the interlocutory appeal”); 2 Donald J. Wolfe, Jr. & Michael
A. Pittenger, Corporate and Commercial Practice in the Delaware Court of Chancery
§ 18.04[c] (2d ed. 2022).

                                            2
Rule 11, ten days from September 22 was October 2.8              TransPerfect filed its

application on October 6. Although Rule 42 provides that this limitation can be

overcome by a showing a good cause,9 TransPerfect has not argued good cause for its

delay, nor is the court able to find good cause.

      5.     Because TransPerfect did not satisfy the procedural requirements of

Rule 42,10 the Application is denied.11

                                          /s/ Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick
                                          Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick
                                          Dated: October 23, 2023

8 Supr. Ct. R. 11(a) (providing that, “[w]hen the period of time prescribed or allowed

is less than 7 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and other legal holidays shall
be excluded in the computation”).
9 Supr. Ct. R. 42(c)(i) (requiring that an application for certification of interlocutory

appeal be “filed within 10 days of the entry of the order from which the appeal is
sought or such longer time as the trial court, in its discretion, may order for good
cause shown”).
10 See J.C. Opco, LLC v. Hudson Hosp. Holdco, Inc., 284 A.3d 725, 2022 WL 4451489,

at *1 (Del. Sept. 23, 2022) (TABLE) (refusing interlocutory appeal where the
appellant failed to show good cause for its untimely application).
11 TransPerfect attempted to appeal the Decisions to the Delaware Supreme Court

while the Application was pending. On October 20, 2023, the Delaware Supreme
Court entered an Order rejecting TransPerfect’s argument that the Decisions were
reviewable under the collateral-order doctrine and dismissing the appeal.
TransPerfect Global, Inc. v. Robert Pincus, No. 335, 2023, Dkt. 11 ¶ 9 (Del. Oct. 20,
2023). The high court further noted in the October 20 Order that the Application was
untimely. Id. ¶ 9 & n.9. Although that ruling appears to have resolved the
Application, the court issues this Order in abundance of caution and to comply with
Rule 42’s mandate that this court decide, as it has here, the merits of an application
for certification of interlocutory appeal. Supr. Ct. R. 42(c).

                                            3