Case Title: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Andres Arteaga, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 134, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-03-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, 
§ 
 
 
 
INC.,  
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 134, 2013 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. N12C-05-008 
ANDRES ARTEAGA, individually, §  
(CONSOLIDATED) 
and as Co-Representative of the  
§  
 
Estate of Leonardo Andres Arteaga  § 
(deceased); and SOCORRO 
 
§  
ARTEAGA, individually, and as 
§  
Co-Representative  of the Estate of 
§  
Leonardo Andres Arteaga (deceased) § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Plaintiffs Below,  
 
§ 
 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 27, 2013 
 
Decided: 
March 28, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
This 28th day of March 2013, upon consideration of the notice and 
supplemental notice of interlocutory appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On March 19, 2013, defendant/appellant, Bell Helicopter 
Textron, Inc. (hereinafter “Bell”), petitioned this Court pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 42 to accept an interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court’s 
order of February 20, 2013 that denied Bell’s motion to reopen under 
2 
 
Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b).  By order dated March 19, 2013, the 
Superior Court denied Bell’s application for certification. 
(2) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional 
circumstances.  Having examined the transcript of the February 19, 2013 
hearing held on Bell’s motion to reopen, the February 20, 2013 order 
denying the motion to reopen, the underlying November 30, 2012 opinion 
denying Bell’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, and the criteria 
set forth in Supreme Court Rule 42, we have concluded that exceptional 
circumstances meriting interlocutory review do not exist in this case. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.     
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice