Case Title: Premier Healthcare Inc v. State of Delawaer

Citation: 

Docket Number: 355, 2018

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-07-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PREMIER HEALTHCARE INC. 
d/b/a NEWARK MANOR 
NURSING HOME, BRUCE 
BOYER, DAVID BOYER, and 
SUSAN COMEGYS,  
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
THE STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 355, 2018 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court of 
§  the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N17C-09-177 
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  July 20, 2018 
 
 
 
 
      Decided:    July 24, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
 
This 24th day of July 2018, having considered the notice of appeal and 
supplemental notice of appeal from an interlocutory order under Supreme Court 
Rule 42, the Court concludes that: 
(1) 
This interlocutory appeal arises from a Superior Court opinion denying 
the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants below-appellants.1  On June 25, 2018, 
the defendants filed an application for certification of an interlocutory appeal.  The 
                                                 
1 State v. Premier Healthcare Inc., 2018 WL 3013484 (Del. June 14, 2018).   
 
 
 
EFiled:  Jul 24 2018 10:07AM EDT  
Filing ID 62267728 
Case Number 355,2018 
 
 
plaintiff opposed the application.  On July 17, 2018, the Superior Court denied the 
application after determining that the denial of the motion to dismiss did not 
establish a legal right or decide a substantial legal issue.2   In so finding, the Superior 
Court noted that the request for an interlocutory appeal arose in the unusual context 
of an order denying a motion to dismiss, an order that by its nature imposed no 
liability or burden on a party, other than that of allowing the plaintiff to develop a 
factual record to support its claims.3  As the Superior Court also noted in both its 
dismissal decision and its decision denying the application for certification, it viewed 
the plaintiff as having raised colorable statutory issues best considered against a 
more developed factual record.4  Therefore, the Superior Court did not view itself as 
having issued an order that established a legal right or decided a substantial legal 
issue.5   
(2) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of the Court.6  We agree with the Superior Court’s recommendation, and 
further find that it would be inefficient to disrupt the normal procession of this case 
by interlocutory appellate review.  As the Superior Court found, the complaint was 
buttressed by numerous factual allegations that may provide a basis for relief on 
                                                 
2 State v. Premier Healthcare Inc., 2018 WL 3471848 (Del. July 17, 2018).   
3 Id. at *2. 
4 Premier Healthcare, 2018 WL 3013484, at *7-9; Premier Healthcare, 2018 WL 3471848, at 
*2-3. 
5 Premier Healthcare, 2018 WL 3471848, at *2-3. 
6 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
 
 
different grounds.  The costs of having this Court conduct a do-over examination of 
the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) seems far more likely to result in delay and excess 
cost that a more efficient resolution of the pending suit.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice