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
- 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.
- 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.
- The request to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages was denied because the court was not dismissing Plaintiff’s tort claims.
- 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
- 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.
- Whether the agreement’s Delaware choice-of-law provision governed Plaintiff’s tortious interference and unfair competition claims.
- Whether Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages should be stricken.
- 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 PDFLoading document…