Manheim v. Ban

Supreme Court of Delaware

Manheim v. Ban

DecidedApril 22, 2024

Docket377, 2023

StatusPublished

This text of Manheim v. Ban (Manheim v. Ban) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Manheim v. Ban, (Del. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOSEPH MANHEIM; WEST 36TH, INC.; § and REATH & CO., LLC, § § No. 377, 2023 Defendants-Below, § Appellants, § § Court Below: Court of Chancery v. § of the State of Delaware § YOUNG MIN BAN, § C.A. No. 2019-0005 § Plaintiff-Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: April 17, 2024 Decided: April 22, 2024

Before VALIHURA, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER This 22nd day of April, 2024, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs

and the record below, and following oral argument, we find it evident that the

judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the

reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion dated June 24, 2022,1 and the Final

Order and Judgment dated September 6, 2023.

1 Appellants argued for the first time on appeal that the Court of Chancery’s factual findings about Appellee’s “unauthorized DropBox access” support “actionable” claims. That argument advances novel legal issues that Appellants never raised to the trial court. See App. to Opening Br. at A573 (trial court’s post-trial factual findings regarding DropBox account); A574-654 and A698-741 (Appellants’ post-trial briefs addressing the parties’ claims in light of the trial court’s post-trial factual findings). This argument therefore is waived and we do not address its merits. See Supr. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of

Chancery is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow Justice

Ct. R. 8; Holifield v. XRI Inv. Hldgs LLC, 304 A.3d 896, 921 (Del. 2023) (“With respect to whether a party has preserved an issue on appeal, we will independently examine ‘the record below.’”) (quoting CompoSecure, L.L.C. v. CardUX, LLC, 206 A.3d 807, 810 (Del. 2018)); Protech Minerals, Inc. v. Dugout Team, LLC, 284 A.3d 369, 379 (Del. 2022) (finding that appellants had not preserved an argument for appeal when they failed to argue the issue to trial court). 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOSEPH MANHEIM; WEST 36TH, INC.; § and REATH & CO., LLC, § § No. 377, 2023 Defendants-Below, § Appellants, § § Court Below: Court of Chancery v. § of the State of Delaware § YOUNG MIN BAN, § C.A. No. 2019-0005 § Plaintiff-Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: April 17, 2024 Decided: April 22, 2024

Before VALIHURA, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER This 22nd day of April, 2024, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs

and the record below, and following oral argument, we find it evident that the

judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the

reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion dated June 24, 2022,1 and the Final

Order and Judgment dated September 6, 2023.

1 Appellants argued for the first time on appeal that the Court of Chancery’s factual findings about Appellee’s “unauthorized DropBox access” support “actionable” claims. That argument advances novel legal issues that Appellants never raised to the trial court. See App. to Opening Br. at A573 (trial court’s post-trial factual findings regarding DropBox account); A574-654 and A698-741 (Appellants’ post-trial briefs addressing the parties’ claims in light of the trial court’s post-trial factual findings). This argument therefore is waived and we do not address its merits. See Supr. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of

Chancery is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow Justice

Ct. R. 8; Holifield v. XRI Inv. Hldgs LLC, 304 A.3d 896, 921 (Del. 2023) (“With respect to whether a party has preserved an issue on appeal, we will independently examine ‘the record below.’”) (quoting CompoSecure, L.L.C. v. CardUX, LLC, 206 A.3d 807, 810 (Del. 2018)); Protech Minerals, Inc. v. Dugout Team, LLC, 284 A.3d 369, 379 (Del. 2022) (finding that appellants had not preserved an argument for appeal when they failed to argue the issue to trial court). 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Manheim v. Ban, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manheim-v-ban-del-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack