David Hume, IV
How Judge Hume rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hume
David Hume IV has served as a Magistrate in Chancery on the Delaware Court of Chancery since February 2025. Before joining the bench, he spent more than 25 years at the Delaware Department of Justice, including work in its appellate unit. He earned his undergraduate degree at the University of Delaware and his law degree at Delaware Law School.
Judge Hume's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Hume's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
How Judge Hume decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In BluSky Restoration Contractors v. Robbins, he recommended denying a preliminary injunction and dismissing claims based on restrictive covenants. He found the restrictions overbroad in their coverage of affiliates and other respects, and declined to rewrite them through blue penciling.
“The restrictions are overbroad in a variety of ways—geographically, temporally, and substantively.”
In his final report in Hassanein v. NTO Fund I, Hume granted the defendants' dismissal motion. The operating agreement imposed 6% interest for nonpayment but specified no principal repayment deadline or default, so he held the parties to those terms.
“The parties, as they are allowed, agreed to these provisions however lamentable they may now seem to Hassanein.”
In Trematerra v. The Affinity Project, he found a proper books-and-records purpose for valuing the plaintiff’s investment and considering a sale. He rejected the separate asserted purposes of investigating wrongdoing and comparing representations made to other stockholders.
“Plaintiff has a proper purpose of valuing his investment and evaluating a possible sale. ... I did not find a proper purpose for investigating wrongdoing or determining whether other stockholders were made representations like those made to Trematerra.”
Procedural preferences
In Straub v. Persolve, he found that counsel failed to take reasonable precautions against an inadvertent document production. Counsel had not reviewed the final ZIP file before sending it; Hume found that a brief review would have exposed the excess material.
“OOSC did not take the most reasonable step. He elected not to conduct a final review of the .zip production file. That basic step would have prevented the inadvertent production.”
In Straub v. Persolve, Hume rejected a request to sanction opposing counsel for an alleged professional conduct rule violation arising from an inadvertent disclosure, explaining that such complaints belong with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
“A trial judge should refer attorney misconduct to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel rather than subject it to sanctions.”
In SpecialtyCare v. MedCost, he addressed subject-matter jurisdiction although the defendant had moved under Rule 12(b)(6). In his final report, he concluded that the statutory independent-dispute-resolution process was not a contractual arbitration and dismissed the claims seeking confirmation of its awards.
“A brief look at the history of the FAA reveals that IDR proceedings are not arbitrations because an agreement to arbitrate must arise out of a contract.”
In Pinczower, Hume retained two legal compensation claims after recommending dismissal of the equitable claims because the complaint invoked equitable jurisdiction at filing and resolving the related claims together served judicial efficiency.
“The Court will therefore exercise its discretion under the cleanup doctrine to retain them in the interest of judicial efficiency.”
Cautions
In Brothers v. Keypoint Intelligence, he rejected the plaintiff’s claim that a profits interest made him a company member. The agreement and related documents did not convey the asserted management rights, and the plaintiff’s subjective understanding did not establish membership.
“Brothers's subjective understanding of his profits interest does not support the conclusion that he holds a membership interest in KPI.”
In Sphera, Hume allowed a particularized fraud claim to proceed while recommending dismissal of a contractual fee-shifting claim. The underlying breach-of-contract claim was outside the motion to dismiss.
“Defendant’s motion to partially dismiss Plaintiff’s verified complaint is denied as to the fraud claim and granted as to the fee-shifting claim.”
In Stercula v. Wengert, he ruled for the defendants after trial because the plaintiff had not proved by clear and convincing evidence that his signature on the deed was forged. He compared the conflicting testimony and documentary record in that property dispute.
“Because I find that Plaintiff has not proven that the deed was forged, I rule in favor of Defendants.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Consequently, there are issues of material fact that must be resolved before complete relief under Count I can be granted properly; thus, Petitioner's Motion must be denied.”
“This report denies summary judgment for two reasons: First, under Delaware's well-established evidentiary standards, credibility is a factual issue best resolved by the finder of fact after a trial on the merits. Second, the validity of the deed purportedly transferring the real property to Wengert as sole owner must be resolved before Wilson's requested relief can be properly granted.”
“Applying the default provisions of the LLC Act, KPI's transfer of a profits interest to Brothers constituted an assignment of economic rights, and not a full membership transfer. Because Brothers is not a member, he lacks standing to compel inspection of KPI's books and records.”
“Straub and OOSC are responsible for the fees and costs associated with the supplemental production and this motion.”
“Plaintiff has a proper purpose of valuing his investment and evaluating a possible sale. He is entitled to categories of books and records as set forth in this opinion. I did not find a proper purpose for investigating wrongdoing or determining whether other stockholders were made representations like those made to Trematerra.”
“As a result, I hold that the non-competition agreement is unenforceable and grant Plaintiff's motion to dismiss. This is my final report.”
“The obligation imposed by the contract is payment of annual 6% interest. That interest has been added to the principal. Neither NTO nor Eliovits have breached the contract. ... The parties, as they are allowed, agreed to these provisions however lamentable they may now seem to Hassanein.”
“Moreover, under the principles of statutory interpretation promulgated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Alexander v. Sandoval and in keeping with several District Court decisions interpreting the No Surprises Act, this Court declines to create a private right of action. These counts are dismissed. The Court further dismisses Plaintiff's three alternative causes of action for failure to state a claim under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6).”
“Because I find that Plaintiff has not proven that the deed was forged, I rule in favor of Defendants.”
“For the reasons explained above, I recommend that BluSky’s request for preliminary injunction be denied and the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted”
“I have found each of the restrictive covenants unenforceable. As a result, BluSky is not reasonably likely to succeed on the merits. Having failed to meet the initial element, BluSky's request for preliminary injunction is denied.”
“Panzura owes the contingency premium fees to Stelfox. ... Panzura owes Stelfox the Cochran Firm's fees. ... Stelfox is entitled to fees-on-fees. She is also entitled to prejudgment interest.”
“For the reasons below, I agree with the Receiver's assessment that Claim 964.02 should be valued at $0. Bernier's Objection to the Claim is denied.”
Draft for Judge Hume with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hume, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hume's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace