Benson Hill Fresh v. J&J Produce Holdings
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BENSON HILL FRESH, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and BENSON HILL BIOSYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. J&J PRODUCE HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § No. 140, 2020 § § Court Below: Court of Chancery § of the State of Delaware § § C.A. No. 2019-0599 JTL § § § § § § § Submitted: June 12, 2020 Decided: June 17, 2020 Before VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices. ORDER After consideration of the notice to show cause, the appellants’ response, and the appellee’s reply, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellants, Benson Hill Fresh, LLC and Benson Hill Biosystems, Inc. (collectively, “Benson Hill”), filed this appeal from decisions of the Court of Chancery dated March 5, 2020, March 11, 2020, and March 13, 2020, which resolved various motions for partial summary judgment brought by the appellee, J&J Produce Holdings Inc. (“J&J”). (2) On April 15, 2020, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to the appellants to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for the appellants’ failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when appealing an apparent interlocutory order. After receiving the appellants’ response, the Clerk of this Court requested that the appellee file a reply. The appellants and the appellee agree that the Court of Chancery has not entered a final judgment in the case. 1 Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final orders.2 The appeal therefore must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. BY THE COURT: /s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice See Appellants’ Response at 1 (“Appellants believe this appeal should be dismissed in its entirety as premature because no final order has been entered by the trial court.”); Appellee’s Reply at 2 (“The underlying orders are interlocutory.”). 2 Hines v. Williams, 2018 WL 2435551 (Del. May 29, 2018); Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 1 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.
