Case Title: In Re Rural Metro Corporation Shareholders Litigation

Citation: 

Docket Number: 625, 2014

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2014-12-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
IN RE RURAL METRO 
CORPORATION SHAREHOLDERS 
LITIGATION,  
 
§ 
§  No. 625, 2014 
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  C.A. No. 6350-VCL 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 24, 2014 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 2, 2014 
 
 
 
 
 
Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 2nd day of December 2014, upon consideration of the notice to show 
cause, the appellant’s response, and the appellee’s reply, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
On November 7, 2014, the defendant-appellant, RBC Capital Markets, 
LLC (“RBC”), filed a notice of appeal from three post-trial opinions of the Court 
of Chancery dated October 10, 2014, March 7, 2014, and December 17, 2013.  
Nine days before RBC filed the notice of appeal, counsel for the lead plaintiff-
appellee filed an opening brief in support of a fee application in the Court of 
Chancery.  In a letter accompanying the notice of appeal, RBC noted the pending 
fee application and stated that it filed the notice of appeal out of an abundance 
caution because the October 10, 2014 opinion referred to the entry of judgment 
against RBC in the amount of $75,798,550.33.   
2 
 
(2) 
On November 10, 2014, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice 
directing RBC to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for RBC’s 
failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 in filing an appeal from an 
interlocutory order.  In its response to the notice to show cause, RBC stated that it 
filed the appeal out of an abundance of caution and agreed that the appeal should 
be dismissed without prejudice if the Court viewed the appeal as an appeal from an 
interlocutory order.  The appellee was asked to respond to RBC’s submission.  The 
appellee stated that an appeal at this stage of the proceedings was interlocutory and 
therefore RBC’s appeal should be dismissed.  
(3) 
This Court has consistently held that a judgment on the merits is not 
final and appealable until the trial court has ruled on an outstanding application for 
attorney’s fees.1  An application for attorneys’ fees is currently pending in the 
Court of Chancery.  The opinions from which RBC appealed are therefore 
interlocutory because they did not finally determine and terminate the case before 
the Court of Chancery.   
                                                 
1 Delaware Bay Surgical Servs., P.A. v. Swier, 2005 WL 541016, at *1 (Del. Feb. 15, 2005); 
Emerald Partners v. Berlin, 811 A.2d 788, 790-91 (Del. 2001); Lipson v. Lipson, 799 A.2d 345, 
348-50 (Del. 1992). 
3 
 
(4) 
This appeal must be dismissed because it was taken from an 
interlocutory order.  Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, this Court 
has no jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal.2      
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that this appeal is DISMISSED.  
The filing fee paid by RBC shall be applied to any future appeal filed by RBC 
from a final order entered in this case. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
2 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).