Case Title: Lima Delta v. Gulfstream Aerospace

Citation: 

Docket Number: 126, 2019

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2019-04-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THE LIMA DELTA COMPANY, a 
Delaware Corporation, TRIDENT 
AVIATION SERVICES, LLC, a 
Delaware Limited Liability 
Company, and SOCIÉTÉ 
COMMERCIALE ET 
INDUSTRIELLE KATANGAISE,  
 
Plaintiffs Below, 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE 
CORPORATION, a Delaware 
Corporation, and GULFSTREAM 
AEROSPACE CORPORATION, a 
Georgia Corporation, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§   
§ 
§  No. 126, 2019 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court  
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N14C-02-042  
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 29, 2019 
 
 
 
 
    Decided:    April 26, 2019 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses to the 
notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On March 19, 2019, the plaintiffs below-appellants, The Lima Delta 
Company, Trident Aviation Services, LLC and Société Commerciale et Industrielle 
Katangaise (collectively, “Lima Delta”), filed a notice of appeal from a Superior 
2 
 
Court opinion, dated and docketed on February 13, 2019, granting the motion to 
dismiss of the defendants-below appellees Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, a 
Georgia corporation, and Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, a Delaware 
corporation (collectively, “Gulfstream”).  A timely notice of appeal should have 
been filed on or before March 15, 2019.1  The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice 
directing Lima Delta to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as 
untimely. 
(2) 
In response to the notice to show cause, Lima Delta described the events 
leading to the untimely notice of appeal as follows: 
In an abundance of caution, Appellants filed their Notice of Appeal a 
day prior to the appeal deadline, on March 14, 2019 with the Superior 
Court in New Castle County.  The Clerk’s Office erroneously accepted 
the Notice of Appeal that same day not realizing that the Notice of 
Appeal was docketed by an attorney’s office rather than the Court 
Clerk.  A copy of the File & ServeXpress transaction receipt reflecting 
the acceptance is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”  At the time of filing, 
counsel for the Defendants/Appellee received notice through File & 
ServeXpress. See Exhibit “A.”  
  
After not receiving any notifications from the Supreme Court, this 
office contacted the Superior Court Clerk’s Office to inquire as to the 
status of the appeal.  We were initially informed that everything was 
accepted and they were just waiting for the Supreme Court to give them 
the notifications triggered by the filing of the Notice of Appeal.  After 
further review and discussion with the Clerk’s Office the staff realized 
the error in accepting the filing of the Notice of Appeal.  My office 
                                                 
1 10 Del. C. § 148 (“No appeal from a final judgment of the Superior Court in a civil action shall 
be received or entertained in the Supreme Court unless the praecipe or notice of appeal is duly 
filed in the office of the Clerk thereof within 30 days after the date of the judgment or decree.”); 
Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i) (providing that notice of appeal from civil judgment must be filed within 30 
days from entry of the judgment on the docket). 
3 
 
promptly contacted the Supreme Court Clerk’s office for direction how 
to correct this error and was instructed to re-file the Notice of Appeal 
with the Supreme Court.  The Notice of Appeal was immediately filed 
with, and accepted by, the Supreme Court.2 
 
Gulfstream argues that the appeal is untimely, does not fall within the 
exception for untimely appeals attributable to court-related personnel, and 
should be dismissed. 
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period in 
order to be effective.4  An untimely appeal can be considered if the appellant 
demonstrates that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-
related personnel.5  In Bey, for example, this Court accepted an untimely appeal 
“[b]ecause defendant did all that was required of him in seeking review; and because 
his default had been occasioned by court related personnel.”6  Similarly, in Riggs v. 
Riggs, this Court accepted an untimely appeal where the appellant had incorrectly 
filed his notice of appeal in the Family Court and the Family Court proceeded as if 
the appeal had been properly filed by acknowledging receipt of the papers, setting 
                                                 
2 Appellants’ Response to the Notice to Show Cause at 1-2. 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
4 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
6 402 A.2d at 363. 
4 
 
bond for the appeal, and questioning its ability to provide further relief while the 
matter was on appeal to this Court.7  
(4) 
The decision to file the initial notice of appeal in the wrong court is 
attributable to Lima Delta alone.  As to Lima Delta’s contention that the 
Prothonotary’s Office should have rejected the notice of appeal upon seeing it was 
filed by a law firm,8 this Court has held that a notice of appeal should not be refused 
by a clerk or rejected automatically by the File and Serve system.9  Lima Delta also 
refers to a conversation in which the Prothonotary’s Office initially indicated that 
the appeal was accepted and that they were waiting for notification from this Court,10 
but fails to indicate when that conversation occurred.  This silence suggests that the 
conversation did not occur until after the time to appeal had expired and thus did not 
cause the untimely filing of the notice of appeal.  Because Lima Delta has not shown 
that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, the appeal must be dismissed.   
                                                 
7 539 A.2d 163, 164 (Del. 1988). 
8 Under Supreme Court Rule 7(a), the Supreme Court Clerk is supposed to forward a copy of the 
notice of appeal “to the clerk of the trial court for filing in such court or to the arbitrator.”  In civil 
cases, the Supreme Court Clerk e-files the notice of appeal in the trial court docket. 
9 Nicholas v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 74 A.3d 634, 635 (Del. 2013) (“This 
Court has held that ‘no notice of appeal should ever be refused by a clerk for filing if the intention 
to appeal is clear from the document filed.’  Similarly, a notice of appeal should not be rejected 
automatically by the File and Serve system.”) (citations omitted).  In Nicholas, the appellants 
sought to transfer the appeal they mistakenly filed in the Superior Court to this Court under 10 
Del. C. § 1902 and were allowed to do so.  Lima Delta has not raised § 1902 so we do not address 
that possibility.   
10 Lima Delta does not explain why they contacted the Superior Court instead of this Court about 
an appeal intended for this Court. 
5 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the appeal is DISMISSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
           Justice