![]() Roche’s corresponding dismissal motion likewise presents, in effect, its opposition to the Rule 60(b) arguments raised by Meso. ![]() Meso’s request for relief was restyled as a separate action for the convenience and at the request of the trial court. Factual and Procedural Background Though this case reaches us as an appeal from the dismissal of Meso’s complaint granting Roche’s motion pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6), Meso’s “complaint” is, in effect, substantively a motion for relief from a judgment under Court of Chancery Rule 60(b), and in particular, under subparagraphs (b)(4) and (b)(6). For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the Court of Chancery. The Court of Chancery denied relief and dismissed the action. In that federal litigation, which ended in 2014, the Chancellor and Vice Chancellors of the Court of Chancery, as the parties responsible for implementing the challenged statute, were nominal defendants (hereinafter, the “Judicial Officers”). Meso alleged that the Vice Chancellor who decided its case four years earlier had an undisclosed disabling conflict, namely, that Roche’s counsel had been simultaneously representing him in an unrelated federal suit challenging the constitutionality of Delaware’s law providing for confidential business arbitration in the Court of Chancery, 10 Del. On February 28, 2019, Meso brought a new action asking the court to reopen the case, vacate the judgment entered after trial, and order a new trial. Roche prevailed at trial, and this Court affirmed the judgment in 2014. Meso alleged two counts of breach of contract. family of pharmaceutical and diagnostics companies. (collectively “Roche”), all of which are or were affiliates or subsidiaries of the F. PER CURIAM: In 2010, Appellants Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC and Meso Scale Technologies, LLC (collectively “Meso”) filed suit in the Court of Chancery against Appellee entities Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Roche Diagnostics Corp., Roche Holding Ltd., IGEN LS LLC, Lilli Acquisition Corp., IGEN International, Inc., and Bioveris Corp. IV, § 12 and Supreme Court Rules 2(a) and 4(a) to complete the quorum. * Sitting by designation pursuant to Del. ![]() McKeown, Esquire, Foley & Lardner LLP, Milwaukee, Wisconsin for Appellees. Sauder, Esquire, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware Of Counsel Thomas L. Michael Connolly, Esquire (argued), Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, Arlington, Virginia, Patrick Strawbridge, Esquire, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, Boston, Massachusetts for Appellants. Finger, Esquire, Finger & Slanina, Wilmington, Delaware, William S. ![]() Upon appeal from the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. 2019-0167 DecemFebruBefore VALIHURA, VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices and RANJI, Judge,* constituting the Court en Banc. 200, 2020 Court Below: Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware C.A. ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GMBH, et al., Defendants Below, Appellees. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MESO SCALE DIAGNOSTICS, LLC., et al., Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery. In 2019, Meso brought a new action asking the court to reopen the case, vacate the judgment entered after trial, and order a new trial. Roche prevailed at trial, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in 2014. (collectively “Roche”), all of which were affiliates or subsidiaries of the F. In 2010, Appellants Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC and Meso Scale Technologies, LLC (collectively “Meso”) filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Appellee entities Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Roche Diagnostics Corp., Roche Holding Ltd., IGEN LS LLC, Lilli Acquisition Corp., IGEN International, Inc., and Bioveris Corp.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |