Ramunno & Ramunno, P.A. v. Lundy Law, L.L.P.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RAMUNNO & RAMUNNO, P.A. INTERVENOR IN (C.A. No: N15C-03-060, GILES v. BOYKIN-BOYD) Appellant, v. LUNDY LAW, L.L.P. Appellees. § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 366, 2018 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware C.A. No. N15C-03-060 Submitted: February 6, 2019 Decided: February 18, 2019 Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. ORDER (1) Ramunno and Ramunno, P.A. (“Ramunno”) appeals from a Superior Court order awarding 15% of a fee collected by Lundy Law in a personal injury action in which Ramunno’s former client was the plaintiff. (2) Ramunno claims that the award was “unreasonable, unfair and arbitrary and not the result of a reasonable, articulate and rational process”1 because the Superior Court failed to adequately explain the basis for its opinion. 1 Op. Br. at 3. (3) We are satisfied that the Superior Court considered the relevant factors in makings its determination that Ramunno was entitled on a quantum meruit basis to 15% —or $6,000.00—of Lundy Law’s 40% contingency fee. (4) We therefore affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the basis of and for the reasons stated in its June 1, 2018 opinion2 and June 19, 2018 order3 granting in part and denying in part Ramunno’s motion for reargument. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice 2 3 Giles v. Boykin-Brown, 2018 WL 2464873 (Del. Super. June 1, 2018). Giles v. Boykin-Brown, N15C-03-060 (Del. Super. June 19, 2018) Dkt. No. 48.
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.
