Caithness Resources v. Ozdemir
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT STATE CIHANCERY OF THE OF D E L A W A R E OF December IO. 2000 Thomas I . Preston, Esquire Reed Smith 120 1 Market Street Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE, 1930 I Phillip Ozde.mii 476 Hopkins Crandall Road Smyrna, NY 13464 Re: Caithness Resources, Inc. v. Phillip Ozdemir and Skvborne, II~L --___-_-C.A. No. 18073 Dear Messrs. Prestcn and Ozdemir: Defendant Phillip Ozdemir has sought rcargument of this Court s Uovcmber 22, 2000 decision (the Denial Order ) denying his motion to dismiss or stay this action in favor of an action brought by Ozdcn-ir in the courts ofthe State of New York. 07dernir s rcargurncnt motion r&ashes issues that he raised in the original briefing on his prior n-lotion. These issues were thoroughly considered by the court in its November 22, 2000 opmion and 1 will not repcat that analysis here. After considering Orclcmir s reiteration of his prior arguments, I art? satisfied that I did not overlook a controlling decision or principle of law and that 1 did not misapprehend the law or mat8erial facts in reaching my decision to deny Ozdcmir s prior motion. K umas RS4 IS Limited Pnrtnwship \-J. SBMS RSA, Inc.., Del. C h.. C.14. No. 13986, mem. op., 1995 WL 214363> at 2, Allen, C. (Mar. 31, 1905). fn the alternative, Ozdcmir scv ks certification of the Denial Order pursuant to Supreme ICourt Rule 42(b). Put succinctl:y, 1 do not believe that the Denial Order meets the criteria of Rule 42(F,). The Denial Order simply rejects Ozdemir r; motion to dismiss cr stay a first-filed. Delaware action. This is the sort of garden-variety ~ro/z-rwr-ifs ruling that is inappropriate for certification under Rule 42(b). The Denial Order involved the application of settled principles of DeIaware and New l ork law and does not invol\,c novel issues of law of sufficient importance to merit interlocutory review by the Delaware Supreme Court. Although Ozdemir s motion presented a somewhat new twist on the traditi onal inquiry into which case was first-filed, the basic first-filed question presented ~- whether a IXevv York action in which the only a bare notice and summons was filed is entitled to firstfiled status -.- was already answered 13,~ the reasoning of Joyce 11. Cuccio, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 14953, mem. op., Jacobs, V.C. (July 24-, 19!)6) and by New York case law. Nor does the Denial Order in any rnanner compel the courts ofNew York to dismiss Ozdemir s pending NW York action; it simply permits the plaintiffs to proceed with their action here. Furthermore, Ozdemir did not file his application for certiIication in a timely manner and has not demonstrated good cause for his late tiling. For all these reasons, Ozdemir s motions for reargument and for certification are HEREBY DENIED. 1T IS SO ORDERED. oc: Register in Chancery
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
