Boulden v. Albiorix, Inc., C.A. No. 7051-VCN (Del. Ch. Jan. 31, 2013, revised Feb. 7, 2013).
This case addressed whether personal jurisdiction was appropriate by a court in Delaware on the various foreign residents involved.
The Court reviews the requirements for personal jurisdiction under Delaware’s long-arm statute, as well as the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction. See pages 13 through 16.
The Court recognized that it has the ability to hold evidentiary hearings to address factual discrepancies over the issue of personal jurisdiction, and the Court may also reconsider the issue of personal jurisdiction once the parties more fully establish the factual record. See footnote 64 and accompanying text.
The Court also reviewed the particularity requirements of Court of Chancery Rule 9(b) that relate to claims for fraud on which the conspiracy basis of a jurisdiction was based. The Court found that the alleged misrepresentation failed to meet the particular pleading requirements for fraud.
The Court also addressed a motion for dismissal under Court of Chancery Rules 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5) based on the argument that there was insufficient process and insufficient service of process. See footnotes 84 and 85 and accompanying text.
The Court also considered the standard for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, which is subject to the Delaware pleading standard of “reasonable conceivability.” See footnote 94.
The Court also addressed a claim for promissory estoppel, the elements for which were recited in connection with footnote 117. The elements of a claim were quantum meruit were also listed at footnote 125. The elements of a claim for breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing were set out in connection with footnotes 127 and 128.
The Court recited the elements of a misrepresentation claim at footnote 137 and a negligent misrepresentation claim at footnotes 138 and 139. The elements of a constructive trust were recited in connection with footnote 150.
In sum, the Court determined that it did not have personal jurisdiction over some of the defendants but did have jurisdiction over defendants Janus, van Wijk and Albiorix.