Supreme Court of Delaware

In an action alleging that defendants provided plaintiff-investor with false financial information, the dismissal of the complaint on forum non conveniens grounds is affirmed where 1) where the Delaware action was not the first filed, the policy that favored strong deference to a plaintiff-s initial choice of forum required the court freely to exercise its discretion in favor of staying or dismissing the Delaware action; and 2) to allow plaintiff to proceed with this Delaware action after the dismissal with prejudice of a predicate Florida action, would ignore the binding effect of the Florida adjudication, and create the possibility of inconsistent and conflicting rulings.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/21/2010
• Published 04/21/2010

Judges

• JACOBS, Justice., Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.

Court

• Supreme Court of Delaware

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Peter B. Ladig and Stephen B. Brauerman, Esquires, of Bayard, P.A ., Wilmington, Delaware; of Counsel: Bruce W. Sanford, Mark A. Cymrot (argued) and Ronald F. Wick, Esquires, of Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, DC; for appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Arthur L. Dent (argued) and Brian C. Ralston, Esquires, of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; of Counsel: Edward H. Davis, Jr., Edward M. Mullins and Annette C. Escobar, Esquires, of Astigarraga Davis Mullins & Grossman, Miami, Florida; for appellees.