MIDLAND FOOD v. CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS, 782 A.2d 265 (Del. 2001)

Midland Food Services v. Castle Hill Holdings.

No. 509, 1999.Supreme Court of Delaware.
June 15, 2001.

Appeal from the Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. C.A. No. 16779-NC.

AFFIRMED.

Unpublished Opinion is below.

MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES, LLC, Midland Food Services II, LLC, Castle Hill Holdings V, LL, Castle Hill Holdings VI, LLC, Castle and Midland Food Services III, LLC, Plaintiffs Below-Appellants, v. CASTLE HILL HOLDINGS, Castle Hill Holdings V, LL, Castle Hill Holdings VI, Hill Holdings, Castle Hill Holdings V, LL, Castle Hill Holdings VI, LLC, Castle Hill Holdings, Castle Hill Holdings V, LL, Castle Hill Holdings VI, LLC, Castle Hill Holdings VII, LLC, Ronald F. Saverin, Janet M. Saverin, Majess, LLC, and Dajust, LLC, Defendants Below-Appellees. No. 509, 1999. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: June 13, 2001. Decided: June 15, 2001.

Court Below: Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. C.A. No. 16779-NC.

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.

ORDER
This 15th day of June 2001, upon consideration of the briefs, supplemental memoranda and the oral argument held on June 13, 2001, it appears to the Court that the judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons set forth in its well-reasoned Opinion dated August 12, 1999. To the extent that appellants had claimed on appeal that the Vice Chancellor improperly considered matters outside the pleadings on a motion to dismiss under Chancery Rule 12(b)(6), we find that appellants expressly acquiesced in the consideration of the questioned matters and abandoned their initial contention that these matters could not be considered on a motion to dismiss. See Opinion at 10 n. 5.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED.

Page 266