Orner v. Country Grove Investment Group, Inc., 2007 WL 3051152 (Del. Ch., Oct. 12, 2007), read opinion here. I just received this opinion today and although I will not spend much time on it because it applies the substantive law of Maryland, there is very practical "advice" in this opinion about Chancery Court procedures that will be of interest to anyone who practices in the court.
Specifically, this case involved a complaint that initially was filed to enjoin arbitration proceedings based on the argument that the arbitration clause did not cover a particular dispute. The arbitrator, via the American Arbitration Association (AAA), scheduled a hearing and went forward with the hearing while aware of the Chancery Court proceeding. The AAA said that it would not stop the proceeding unless and until it received a court order prohibiting it from going forward. The Chancery Court found that it was incumbent upon the petitioner in Chancery Court to seek expedited proceedings in Chancery Court (which almost surely would have been granted so that a decision would have been made prior to any AAA hearing.) The petitioner in Chancery Court did not seek expedited proceedings and as there was no basis to vacate the arbitrator’s award, the petitioner was stuck with an award against her based on an arbitration hearing that she did not attend.