Case Title: Erhart v. DirecTV, Inc., et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 487, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DEBORAH ERHART and 
§  
DOUGLAS ERHART, 
§ 
No. 487, 2012 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiffs Below,  
§ 
Court Below– Superior Court 
 
 
Appellants,  
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in and  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. N10C-09-019 
DIRECTV, INC., a Corporation of 
§ 
the State of California, and LUXE 
§ 
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a  
§  
Corporation of the State of Delaware, § 
and EDDIE MENA, Individually and § 
as a representative of Luxe 
 
§  
Communications, LLC,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellees.  
 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 4, 2012 
Decided: 
September 19, 2012 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of September 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) In September 2010, the plaintiffs-appellants, Deborah Erhart and 
Douglas Erhart (hereinafter “the Erharts”), filed a seven-count complaint seeking 
damages and statutory remedies arising out of the installation of satellite cable 
television equipment in their home.  In April 2012, the defendants-appellees, 
DirecTV, Inc., Luxe Communications, Inc., and Eddie Mena, filed six motions in 
2 
 
limine.   By opinion dated June 20, 2012, the Superior Court granted the motions in 
limine, and by order dated August 7, 2012 the court denied the Erharts’ motions to 
reargue the opinion.  By granting the motions in limine, the Superior Court 
effectively excluded six of the Erharts’ seven claims.   
(2) Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42 (“Rule 42”), the Erharts have 
petitioned this Court to accept an interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court’s 
August 7, 2012 order on reargument from the June 20, 2012 opinion.  By order 
dated August 30, 2012, the Superior Court denied the Erharts’ application for 
certification of an interlocutory appeal. 
(3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances.  The 
Court has examined the August 7, 2012 order and June 20, 2012 opinion according 
to the criteria set forth in Rule 42 and has concluded that exceptional 
circumstances warranting interlocutory review do not exist in this case. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED. 
 
  
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
  
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
  
 
 
 
        Justice