In Re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: August 3, 2023
• Docket: 258, 2023
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE AMC ENTERTAINMENT § No. 258, 2023 HOLDINGS, INC. § STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION § Court Below—Court of Chancery § of the State of Delaware § § Consol. C.A. No. 2023-0215 §

Submitted: July 28, 2023 Decided: August 3, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to

the Court that:

(1) On July 20, 2023, the appellant, David D. Madriz, Jr., filed this

interlocutory appeal from a stockholder class action pending in the Court of

Chancery. A proposed settlement has been submitted to the Court of Chancery for

approval.

(2) In his appeal papers, Madriz identified June 27, 2023 as the date of the

interlocutory ruling he was appealing. A review of the Court of Chancery docket

did not reveal any court rulings or orders on June 27, 2023. The Senior Court Clerk

issued a notice directing Madriz to show cause why this appeal should not be

dismissed for his failure to identify a court order subject to appellate review. (3) In his response to the notice to show cause, Madriz identifies a June 27,

2023 telephone call he had with a Court of Chancery employee regarding a document

he had previously sent to the Court of Chancery as the “De facto Interlocutory

Order” on appeal.1 It appears that Madriz sent a letter, dated April 27, 2023, to the

Court of Chancery (“April 27, 2023 Letter”). The letter appears on the docket for

May 4, 2023 under Filing ID Number 69956552. In the April 27, 2023 Letter,

Madriz expressed his concerns regarding an “AMC Tokenization Scam,” the need

for discovery on this issue, and the plaintiff’s counsel. According to Madriz, he had

telephone calls with Court of Chancery employees on June 26th and June 27th

regarding the lack of action on his April 27, 2023 Letter.

(4) Madriz’s telephone calls with Court of Chancery employees who are

not judicial officers do not constitute appealable interlocutory orders. Even if a

telephone call with court staff could constitute an appealable interlocutory order as

Madriz contends, the handling of the April 27, 2023 Letter does not meet the strict

standards for this Court’s acceptance of an interlocutory appeal under Supreme

Court Rule 42. This appeal must be dismissed.

1 Good Cause Statement at 2.

2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice