Categories: Delaware Court Opinions

BRADLEY v. FIRST INTERSTATE BANCORP, 748 A.2d 913 (Del. 2000)

TIMOTHY W. BRADLEY, individually and as Class representative for the non-moot claims of the certified class, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. FIRST INTERSTATE BANCORP, EDWARD M. CARSON, WILLIAM S. RANDALL, WILLIAM E.B. SIART, JOHN E. BRYSON, JEWEL PLUMMER COBB, RALPH P. DAVIDSON, MYRON DuBAIN, DON C. FRISBEE, GEORGE M. KELLER, THOMAS L. LEE, WILLIAM F. MILLER, STEVEN B. SAMPLE, FORREST N. SHUMWAY, RICHARD J. STEGEMEIER, DANIEL M. TELLEP, AND FIRST BANK SYSTEM, INC., Defendants Below, Appellees.

No. 445, 1999.Supreme Court of Delaware.Submitted: March 14, 2000.
Decided: March 21, 2000.

Appeal from the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. 14623.

AFFIRMED.

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and BERGER, Justices.

ORDER
JOSEPH T. WALSH, Justice

This 21st day of March 2000, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and oral argument, the Court concludes that, in ruling that Plaintiff Below-Appellant had pleaded derivative claims, the Court of Chancery correctly applied the standards announced by this Court in Kramer v. Western Pacific Indus., Del. Supr., 546 A.2d 348, 354 (1988) and Parnes v. Bally Entertainment Corp., Del. Supr., 722 A.2d 1243, 1245
(1999). Accordingly, Appellant lacks standing to assert those claims. See Lewis v. Anderson, Del. Supr., 477 A.2d 1040 (1984). We further conclude that Appellant’s California state law claims are exclusively controlled by Delaware law under the internal affairs doctrine. See McDermott, Inc. v. Lewis, Del. Supr., 531 A.2d 206, 215 (1987).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery be, and the same hereby is,

AFFIRMED.

jdjungle