Innovative V, LLC d/b/a TPH Academy v. The St. James Sports & Wellness Complex LLC

Innovative V · United States District Court for the District of Delaware · June 8, 2026 · No. 1:25-cv-01055-JCG

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion to strike in a dispute involving an agreement to operate a sports academy. The Court denied dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim concerning alleged interference with TPH Academy’s relationship with K12 and held that Delaware law governed the plaintiff’s tort claims under the agreement’s choice-of-law provision. The Court denied the request to strike punitive damages but struck the jury demand as to the breach-of-contract claims.

Holdings

  1. Count II stated a plausible claim for breach of the agreement’s non-solicitation provision. At the pleading stage, K12’s status as an independent contractor was plausible, and the alleged communications between St. James and K12 supported a reasonable inference that St. James influenced K12’s termination of its agreement with TPH Academy.
  2. The agreement’s broad Delaware choice-of-law provision governed Plaintiff’s tortious interference and unfair competition claims because those claims related to the agreement.
  3. The request to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages was denied because the court was not dismissing Plaintiff’s tort claims.
  4. The jury-trial waiver applied to Plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claims, but the court declined to interpret it broadly enough to waive a jury trial unequivocally for Plaintiff’s tort claims.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleged that St. James breached the agreement’s non-solicitation provisions by interfering with TPH Academy’s relationship with K12.
  2. Whether the agreement’s Delaware choice-of-law provision governed Plaintiff’s tortious interference and unfair competition claims.
  3. Whether Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages should be stricken.
  4. Whether the contractual jury-trial waiver applied to all of Plaintiff’s claims or only to the breach-of-contract claims.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (9)

  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Market Am., Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 09-494-GMS, 2011 WL 1485616, at *3 (D. Del. Apr. 19, 2011)(followed)
  • Gloucester Holding Corp. v. U.S. Tape and Sticky Prods., LLC, 832 A.2d 116, 124 (Del. Ch. 2003)(followed)
  • Pharmathene, Inc. v. Siga Techs., Inc., No. 2627–VCP, 2008 WL 151855, at *7 (Del. Ch. 2008)(followed)
  • Weil v. Morgan Stanley DW Inc., 877 A.2d 1024, 1032–33 (Del. Ch. 2005), aff’d, 894 A.2d 407 (Del. 2005)(followed)
  • Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 301 U.S. 389, 393 (1937)(followed)
  • Tracinda Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler AG, 502 F.3d 212, 222 (3d Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • First Union Nat’l Bank v. United States, 164 F. Supp. 2d 660, 663 (E.D. Pa. 2001)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…