A recent letter ruling from the Court of Chancery clarified the procedural distinction between a statutory proceeding considered “summary” in nature, and a case that may involve exigent circumstances for which a Motion to Expedite may be warranted. In PL Wardman Member, LLC v. JBGS/Company Manager, L.L.C., No. 2020-0754-JRS (Del. Ch. Sept. 21, 2020), the Court reviewed a Motion to Expedite in a dissolution case.
The Court explained that: “Summary means expedited, at least relative to plenary actions.” And the decision added that when “addressing scheduling with respect to statutory summary proceedings, this court does not dwell on the traditional standards applied to other motions to expedite… [and] we move summary proceedings along….”
This decision is a useful tool for the toolbox of litigators who toil in the fields of the Court of Chancery.