OF D E L A W A R E
December IO. 2000
Thomas I’. Preston, Esquire
120 1 Market Street
Wilmington, DE, 1930 I
476 Hopkins Crandall Road
Smyrna, NY 13464
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,
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.
Register in Chancery