IntelliBridge, LLC v. Kimura

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: June 25, 2026
• Docket: N25C-12-604 MAA CCLD
• Status: Published

Opinion

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MEGHAN A. ADAMS LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER JUDGE 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 10400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 (302) 255-0634

June 25, 2026

C. Barr Flinn, Esq. Joseph B. Cicero, Esq. Paul J. Loughman, Esq. Ryan M. Lindsay, Esq. Zeliang Liu, Esq. Dakota B. Eckenrode, Esq. Young Conaway Stargatt and Taylor LLP Chipman Brown Cicero and Cole LLP Rodney Square Hercules Plaza 1000 North King Street 1313 North Market Street, Suite 5400 Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, Delaware 19801

RE: IntelliBridge, LLC v. Brett Kimura C.A. No. N25C-12-604 MAA CCLD

Counsel:

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs (“Defendants”) move for leave to file a

motion for summary judgment (the “Motion”).1 Delaware courts have previously

denied such motions when there are “no good reasons to permit a motion for

summary judgment”2 and summary judgment proceedings would be “apt to waste,

rather than conserve, the resources of the parties and the court.”3 Summary judgment

is only appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and the

moving party is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”4

1 D.I. 37 [“Mot.”]. 2 Kulak v. On, 2026 WL 1122367, at *13 (Del. Ch. April 24, 2026). 3 In re XL Fleet (Pivotal) S’holder Litig., 2024 WL 3888738, at *1 (Del. Ch. Aug. 21, 2024) (quoting Orloff v. Shulman, 2007 WL 1862742, at *1 (Del. Ch. June 20, 2007). 4 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 26(b)(1). IntelliBridge, LLC v. Brett Kimura C.A. No. N25C-12-604 MAA CCLD Page 2 of 2

After reviewing the Parties’ briefing, the Court finds Defendants have failed

to show good reason to permit a motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s

Puckboard arguments rely upon “common knowledge” in the government

contracting industry, which presents a question of material fact.5 Defendant’s CMS

arguments rely upon disputed facts. These disputed facts include whether

Defendants’ had pre-closing knowledge CMS intended to terminate its contracts

with Revacomm and whether Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant had pre-closing

knowledge Mr. Wood intended to depart from CMS.6

Under these circumstances, the resources that would be expended on a motion

for summary judgment would be wasteful, as Defendants cannot show no genuine

issues of material fact exist or that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter

of law. Defendants’ Motion therefore must be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sincerely, /s/ Meghan A. Adams Meghan A. Adams, Judge

cc: All Counsel via File and Serve MAA/ls

5 Id. ¶ 13. 6 Mot. ¶ 21; Mot. Response ¶ 21.