Kinexus Representative LLC v. Advent Software, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Delaware Court of Chancery?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Delaware Court of Chancery. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Plaintiffs, former shareholders and the representative and attorney-in-fact for all shareholders of Kinexus Corporation (Kinexus), commenced this action asserting claims against Advent Software, Inc. (Advent) for breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising out of a December 31, 2001 agreement entered into by Advent to acquire Kinexus. Advent subsequently moved to dismiss the action because of Kinexus' failure to prosecute and Advent argued that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate under Court of Chancery Rules 41(b) and 41(e). The court held that Advent's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute was denied where the court was not convinced that these circumstances necessitated dismissal because of the court's preference for resolving cases on the merits and because Kinexus appeared to have renewed their efforts to diligently prosecute the matter. Accordingly, counsel were requested to confer and to promptly submit a case scheduling order so that discovery could be completed and a trial date could be established.
Download PDF
EFiled: Jun 30 2011 2:22PM EDT Transaction ID 38449122 Case No. 1161-VCN COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOHN W. NOBLE VICE CHANCELLOR 417 SOUTH STATE STREET DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 TELEPHONE: (302) 739-4397 FACSIMILE: (302) 739-6179 June 30, 2011 Revised June 30, 2011 David L. Finger, Esquire Finger & Slanina, LLC One Commerce Center 1201 N. Orange Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Re: Stephen C. Norman, Esquire Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Kinexus Representative LLC v. Advent Software, Inc. C.A. No. 1161-VCN Date Submitted: March 29, 2011 Dear Counsel: Defendant Advent Software, action because of the Plaintiffs failure to prosecute and argues that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate under Court of Chancery Rules 41(b) and 41(e). The Plaintiffs former shareholders and the representative and attorney-in-fact for all shareholders of Kinexus Corporation commenced this action on March 8, 2005. They assert claims against Advent for breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising out of a December 31, 2001 agreement entered into by Kinexus Representative LLC v. Advent Software, Inc. C.A. No. 1161-VCN June 30, 2011 Page 2 Advent to acquire Kinexus. The two periods of inactivity cited by Advent are January 2006 through February 2008 and January 2009 through November 2010; indeed, the docket shows that no filings were made during those months, except in February 2008 when the Plaintiffs filed a notice of substitution of counsel and two motions for admission pro hac vice. to manage its docket to prevent 1 are Court of Chancery Rule 41(b) authorizing or to comply with [Court of Chancery] Rules or any order of court and Rule 41(e) authorizing dismissal of in . . . . dismiss under these rules is committed to the Court The decision to .2 In addition, 3 unexplained and unjustifiable 1 Tooley v. AXA Fin., Inc., 2009 WL 1220624, at *2 (Del. Ch. Apr. 29, 2009). Id. 3 Lane v. Cancer Treatment Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 2001 WL 432445, at *1 (Del. Ch. Apr. 11, 2001). 2 Kinexus Representative LLC v. Advent Software, Inc. C.A. No. 1161-VCN June 30, 2011 Page 3 demonstrated that monetary sanctions and admonitions from this Court have no 4 More specifically, the Plaintiff according to Advent, has seriously impaired its ability to defend itself in this action because the key individuals involved in the acquisition are no longer employed by Advent and knowledge of important facts may have been forgotten because of the significant passage of time.5 Advent also suggests that dismissal is warranted because the Plaintiffs have repeatedly delayed prosecuting this action and have previously disregarded Court of Chancery Rules and 4 5 .6 . lack of diligence in prosecuting this matter has caused having to re-educate its lawyers about the litigation and ongoing data storage and preservation costs. For that reason, Advent requests that the Court impose sanctions in the amount of $252,623.47 to offset its storage and preservation costs if the Court does not grant the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The Court considers this request below. 6 In support of this contention, Advent points to the following: (1) the Plaintiffs only responded -year delay and the entry of an order of this Court he Court required the Plaintiffs to pay second order; and (4) although required by court order to produce all responsive documents to 2010 with additional responsive documents. Kinexus Representative LLC v. Advent Software, Inc. C.A. No. 1161-VCN June 30, 2011 Page 4 In response, the Plaintiffs argue that dismissal is not warranted. They contend that they are now diligently prosecuting this action and have not violated any Court of Chancery Rules or court orders. Any prejudice to Advent, according to the Plaintiffs, is speculative and minimal. Although the Plaintiffs concede that the Court earlier concluded that they had unreasonably delayed in producing documents, they assert that the record does not show any other missed deadlines or noncompliance with cause of their now active prosecution of 7 The Plaintiffs inactivity has caused significant and excessive delay in preparing this action for trial. Their failure to move the case forward has resulted in piecemeal discovery with long and unnecessary gaps between those efforts. Perhaps more troubling is that the Plaintiffs appear to have ignored the clear message of a September 22, 2008 letter opinion where the Court admonished the Plaintiffs for their discovery request; remarkably, 7 Pls s for Failure to Prosecute at 17. Kinexus Representative LLC v. Advent Software, Inc. C.A. No. 1161-VCN June 30, 2011 Page 5 compel and awarded it fees and costs under Court of Chancery Rule 37(a)(4)(A), the Plaintiffs continued the sluggish pace of this litigation. Not only have they failed to diligently prosecute their claims, but they offer little, if any, good reason for their inaction. Nevertheless, although Advent has likely suffered some adverse effects as a bear some prejudice because the events giving rise to this action primarily occurred nearly a decade ago, the Court is not convinced that these circumstances necessitate dismissal. That conclusion is Plaintiffs appear to have renewed their efforts to diligently prosecute this matter8 notably, Advent did not file its motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute until after the Plaintiffs had resumed actively pursuing their claims.9 Thus, although the Plaintiffs inactivity tests the outer reaches a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, the better course of action in this instance is for the Court to decline to exercise its discretion to dismiss. 8 In , L.P., 2006 WL 452775, at *2 (Del. Ch. Feb. 16, 2006). Although the docket reflects no activity from January 2009 through November 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a series of motions for commission on December 6, 2010, validating their argument that they had renewed their discovery efforts. Shortly thereafter, on December 8th, Advent filed its motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. 9 Page 6 revised 6/30/11 Kinexus Representative LLC v. Advent Software, Inc. C.A. No. 1161-VCN June 30, 2011 Page 6 For prosecute is denied.10 Counsel are requested to confer and to promptly submit a case scheduling order so that discovery may be completed11 and a trial date may be established.12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, /s/ John W. Noble JWN/cap cc: Register in Chancery-K 10 ailure to prosecute renders moot the 11 motions for commission to take out-of-state depositions. Because the Court will not dismiss this ry will likely include the taking of depositions. It does not appear that time is of the essence in conducting that discovery. Nonetheless, consistent with its ruling, the Court is hopeful that discovery will conclude in the near future. For that reason, in establishing a case scheduling order, the parties are expected to confer with regard to the scope and number of depositions needed by both sides so that discovery may be completed without further delay. 12 the payment of data storage and preservation fees is also denied. Some of the $252,623.47 of storage fees claimed to have been incurred by Advent during the periods of inactivity (see Decl. of Robert Petrini ¶ 4) likely would have resulted even if the litigation had been diligently prosecuted. The Court is disinclined to speculate as to what portion of those costs should be attributed to that expected amount in contrast to the costs resulting solely from the delay and, as a result, it will not grant sanctions in the form requested by Advent.
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.
