Case Title: In re Morrow Park Holding LLC

Citation: 

Docket Number: 380, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-12-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN RE MORROW PARK 
HOLDING LLC 
 
 
§  No. 380, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below–Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§     
§  C.A. No. 2017-0036 
                    
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 4, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 5, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On August 1, 2022, the Court of Chancery issued a memorandum 
opinion resolving the merits of a business divorce among various real estate 
developers—the “Holtzman Parties” on the one hand and the “Compatriot Parties” 
on the other.1  On September 12, 2022, the Court of Chancery issued an 
implementing order adopting the court’s memorandum opinion.  On October 7, 
2022, the Compatriot Parties—claiming that they were the prevailing parties and that 
they had been wrongfully enjoined—filed a motion for costs under Court of 
Chancery Ruel 54(d) and for damages under Court of Chancery Rule 65(c). 
 
1 In re Morrow Park Holding LLC, 2022 WL 3025780 (Del. Ch. Aug. 1, 2022) (corrected Aug. 
16, 2022). 
2 
 
(2) 
On October 12, 2022, the Holtzman Parties filed a notice of appeal from 
the Court of Chancery’s implementing order.  Because the Compatriot Parties’ 
motion for costs and damages remained pending in the Court of Chancery, the Senior 
Court Clerk issued a notice to the Holtzman Parties to show cause why this appeal 
should not be dismissed for their failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 
when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.   
(3) 
In their response to the notice to show cause, the Holtzman Parties state 
that they are “certainly willing” to await the resolution of the pending motion and 
indicate that they filed the notice of appeal out of an abundance of caution to preserve 
their right to appeal.  At the Court’s direction, the Compatriot Parties also responded 
to the notice to show cause.  The Compatriot Parties aver that the Court of 
Chancery’s implementing order is interlocutory and that this appeal must be 
dismissed for the Holtzman Parties’ failure to comply with Rule 42 when taking an 
appeal from an interlocutory order.  We agree with the Compatriot Parties that this 
appeal must be dismissed. 
(4) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court 
is limited to the review of a trial court’s final judgment.2  An order is deemed final 
and appealable if the trial court has declared its intention that the order be the court’s 
 
2 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
3 
 
final act in disposing of all justiciable matters within its jurisdiction.3  The 
Compatriot Parties’ motion for costs and damages was outstanding when the 
Holtzman Parties filed the notice of appeal and remains so now.  Relevant here, the 
Court of Chancery’s action on the motion for damages will require the court to 
exercise its discretion when it decides whether, and in what amount, to award 
damages to the Compatriot Parties.4  The Holtzman Parties were therefore required 
to comply with the provisions of Rule 42 or await the Court of Chancery’s entry of 
a final order.  The filing fee paid in conjunction with the appeal shall be applied to 
any later appeal filed by the Holtzman Parties from the Court of Chancery’s final 
judgment. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
3 J. I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973). 
4 See Singh v. Batta Env’t Assocs., Inc., 2003 WL 22415999, at *1 (Del. Oct. 21, 2003) (finding 
that the trial court’s direction to the parties to confer and submit a proposed implementing order 
rendered the appeal interlocutory because “[t]he further action required by the Court of Chancery 
… is not a purely ministerial act but an exercise of discretion by the court in fashioning an 
appropriate implementing order”).