Lee, et al. v. Choice Hotels International, Inc., et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHAN YOUNG LEE, a minor, by his parents and guardians ad litem, BO HYUN LEE and WAN KI KIM, BO HYUN LEE, individually, WAN KI KIM, individually, and YOUNG MIN LEE, a minor, by his parents and guardians ad litem, BO HYUN LEE and WAN KI KIM, Plaintiffs BelowAppellants, v. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation d/b/a QUALITY INNS AND RESORTS, Defendant BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 162, 2011 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 02C-10-280 Submitted: April 18, 2011 Decided: April 21, 2011 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices ORDER This 21st day of April 2011, it appears to the Court that: (1) The plaintiffs-appellants, Chan Young Lee et al. (the appellants ), have petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from the interlocutory order of the Superior Court dated March 9, 2011, which granted the motion in limine of the defendant- appellee, Choice Hotels International, Inc., to exclude from trial Regulation No. 61 of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Indonesia regarding health requirements of swimming pools and public baths. (2) The appellants filed their application for certification to take an interlocutory appeal in the Superior Court on March 14, 2011. On April 18, 2011, the Superior Court denied the application for certification on the ground that the requirements of Rule 42 had not been met. (3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court. In the exercise of its discretion, the Court has concluded that the appellants application for interlocutory review fails to meet the requirements of Rule 42 and, therefore, should be refused. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 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.
