Anchorage Police & Fire Retirement System v. Rudy Adolf
This text of Anchorage Police & Fire Retirement System v. Rudy Adolf (Anchorage Police & Fire Retirement System v. Rudy Adolf) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KATHALEEN ST. JUDE MCCORMICK LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER CHANCELLOR 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734
October 22, 2024
Derrick B. Farrell Christine M. Mackintosh Matthew L. Miller Casimir O. Szustak Robert B. Lackey Grant & Eisenhoffer P.A. Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP 123 Justison Street 3411 Silverside Road Wilmington, DE 19810 Baynard Building, Suite 104 Wilmington, DE 19810
Ned C. Weinberger Craig J. Springer Michael C. Wagner Andrews & Springer LLC Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP 4001 Kennett Pike, #250 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19807 Wilmington, DE 19801
Raymond J. DiCamillo A. Thompson Bayliss Robert L. Burns E. Wade Houston Matthew W. Murphy Bryan M. Blaylock Nicholas F. Mastria Abrams & Bayliss LLP Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19807 Wilmington, DE 19801
S. Mark Hurd Rolin P. Bissell Emily C. Friedman Alberto E. Chávez Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP 1201 North Market Street Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 1000 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: Anchorage Police & Fire Retirement System et al. v. Rudy Adolf et al., C.A. No. 2024-0354-KSJM
Dear Counsel:
There is a hearing in this action scheduled for tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. Because
the members of the court share court rooms, court reporters, and other critical C.A. No. 2024-0354-KSJM October 22, 2024 Page 2 of 2
resources, and because I have other meetings and matters to attend to, the hearing
will end no later than 3:00 p.m.
As you all know, this is how our court schedules hearings—in 90-minute
blocks. If a party needs more than 90 minutes to present a motion, it is incumbent
on that party to request more time through a motion or letter on the docket filed in
advance of the hearing. My assistant, Linda Rizzo, relayed this information to the
thorough person who called her three times to confirm it. During the third
communication, the caller questioned whether I was actually busy given that no other
hearings appeared on the court docket after the 1:30 p.m. hearing. Generally
speaking, litigants can trust that Ms. Rizzo has a better understanding than I do of
where I must be and when. But this letter is to confirm what she said (three times):
You have 90 minutes.
Sincerely,
/s/ Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick
Chancellor
cc: All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Anchorage Police & Fire Retirement System v. Rudy Adolf, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anchorage-police-fire-retirement-system-v-rudy-adolf-delch-2024.