Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Eric Pulier v. CSC Agility Platform, Inc.
Citation: Not availableDocket: CA 2017-0081-AGB
Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware; April 9, 2018; Delaware; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware ruled on Eric Pulier's motion for reargument regarding a previous advancement order. Initially, on September 13, 2017, the court awarded Pulier 100% of his attorneys' fees related to government investigations. Following the indictment against Pulier on September 27, 2017, CSC Agility Platform, Inc. (formerly ServiceMesh Inc.) sought to amend this order, leading to a court ruling on January 30, 2018, that reduced the advancement obligation to 80% and excluded fees related to certain counts of the indictment (the “Non-Covered Counts”). Pulier's motion for reargument was filed on February 6, 2018, in which he did not contest the exclusion of the Non-Covered Counts but argued that the reduction was based on a misapprehension of material facts. He claimed the Rule 88 process was the most efficient way to address billing disputes concerning these counts, citing prior successful engagements. However, the court noted this argument had already been rejected in earlier proceedings, emphasizing that a reargument motion is not intended for relitigating previously considered claims or presenting new arguments. The court reiterated the necessity for a compelling reason for reargument, which Pulier failed to establish. Ultimately, the motion for reargument was denied. The court determined that it allocated 80% of the advancement obligation to ensure a fair distribution, acknowledging that only three out of fifteen counts in the indictment were non-covered and that the Order encompassed additional government investigations. Pulier's request for reargument was deemed inappropriate as it relied on previously rejected arguments. He alternatively argued for a 95% advancement obligation based on affidavits from his counsel, which claimed that only 5% of the defense team's time would be spent on the non-covered counts. However, the court found this reliance on new evidence problematic since Pulier had the opportunity to present this information earlier but chose not to. Pulier's assertion that only 3% of his fees were related to the non-covered counts lacked evidentiary support at the time of the motion. The court concluded that Pulier’s motion for reargument failed to demonstrate any misapprehension of material facts, as it either reiterated prior arguments or introduced evidence that should have been presented earlier. Thus, the motion for reargument was denied.