Dag Landvik v. Tempur-Pedic
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DAG LANDVIK, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL, INC., a corporation of the State of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § Nos. 161/162, 2007 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 06C-08-134 Submitted: April 19, 2007 Decided: May 14, 2007 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 14th day of May 2007, it appears to the Court that: (1) On March 30, 2007, the appellant, Dag Landvik, petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court s February 28, 2007 summary denial of Landvik s Renewed Motion to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings, or in the Alternative, to Quash Discovery ( Landvik s motion ). By separate notice filed on April 2, 2007, Landvik petitioned the Court to accept an interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court s March 20, 2007 oral denial of Landvik s motion for reargument. In the interest of judicial economy, the Court has consolidated Landvik s interlocutory appeals for decision. (2) By memorandum opinion and order dated April 16, 2007, the Superior Court published its rationale for summarily denying Landvik s motion. The Court also published its oral denial of Landvik s motion for reargument. In the same decision, the Superior Court denied Landvik s requests to certify an interlocutory appeal. (3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court.1 The Court concludes, in the exercise of discretion, that neither the February 28 nor the March 20 decision, as enunciated in the Superior Court s April 16, 2007 memorandum opinion and order, satisfies the criteria for accepting an interlocutory appeal.2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Nos. 161 and 162, 2007 are CONSOLIDATED for decision, and the interlocutory appeals are REFUSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 1 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v) (2007) (providing that Court shall determine in its discretion whether to accept or refuse interlocutory appeal). 2 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b) (listing criteria for determining acceptance of interlocutory appeal). 2
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.
