 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brandt v. Rokeby Realty Co.5/9/2005
he Court may enter a final judgment.
Service claims that final judgment should be entered because this case is slated to go on for many months. The Court finds however that there is just reason for delay - the avoidance of piecemeal appeals in a case that has proven to be quite complex. See, e.g., Gatz v. Ponsoldt, 2004 WL 3031203, at *1 (Del. Ch.) ( "When deciding to exercise its discretion in this manner, the Court may consider many factors and will balance those factors against 'the long established policy against piecemeal appeals [that] requires ... this Court exercise that discretion sparingly.' Indeed, Rule 54(b) exists to create 'a discretionary power to afford a remedy in the infrequent harsh case....'" (Citation omitted)). Accordingly, no final judgment on Service's dismissal from this case will be issued until all claims are adjudicated.
CONCLUSION
Considering the foregoing, J. Frank Peter is precluded from testifying in this case as to both Rokeby's and Service's standards of care. Carl Borsari will be permitted to testify about the standard of care for a building owner or manager. Since Plaintiff Brandt has failed to provide an expert who can testify as to Service's standard of care as a Delaware landlord, it cannot prove an essential element of its case and Service Unlimited must be dismissed as a defendant in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|