David Dinkevich v. Deutsche Telekom AG
C.A. No. 2021-0479-PAF
Del. Ch.Jun 20, 2025Background
- This Delaware Court of Chancery action arises from the 2020 merger of T-Mobile US, Inc. and Sprint Corporation.
- Plaintiff Dinkevich originally brought fiduciary duty and insider trading (Brophy) claims against several T-Mobile executives and SoftBank affiliates.
- After the court partially dismissed the case, including dismissing the Brophy claims against Claure and Fisher with prejudice, the case proceeded through extensive discovery, exceeding 10 million pages and 35 depositions.
- Plaintiff moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint: dropping claims against Sievert and Carter, adding factual allegations against Legere, and seeking to replead the Brophy claims against Claure and Fisher based on new discovery.
- Defendants opposed the amendments as to Legere (timing/prejudice) and as to Claure/Fisher (law of the case, lack of changed circumstances, and prejudice from late revival).
- The court evaluated the liberal amendment standard under Rule 15 and the stricter standards for repleading dismissed claims under the law of the case doctrine and Rule 15(a)(5)(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment to add new allegations against Legere | New discovery supports augmenting breach of fiduciary duty claims; no unfair prejudice with months before trial | Amendment post-discovery is prejudicial; too close to trial; any schedule changes should accompany amendment | Granted; parties may reschedule trial to mitigate possible prejudice |
| Repleading Brophy claims against Claure and Fisher | New evidence from discovery (texts, docs, depositions) justifies revisiting prior dismissal with prejudice | Dismissal with prejudice is law of the case; no substantial change; amending now is prejudicial | Granted; new evidence is a sufficient change in circumstances to permit amendment, subject to rescheduling trial to prevent prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Brophy v. Cities Service Co., 70 A.2d 5 (Del. Ch. 1949) (establishes Delaware's insider trading cause of action for fiduciaries)
- Bokat v. Getty Oil Co., 262 A.2d 246 (Del. 1970) (sets discretionary standard for allowing complaint amendments)
- Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., 884 A.2d 26 (Del. 2005) (law of the case doctrine)
- Gannett Co., Inc. v. Kanaga, 750 A.2d 1174 (Del. 2000) (flexibility of law of the case doctrine when faced with injustice or changed circumstances)
- Frank G.W. v. Carol M.W., 457 A.2d 715 (Del. 1983) (interlocutory judgment may be revised before final judgment)