Case Title: Maginn v. Dean

Citation: 

Docket Number: 476, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-01-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT A. MAGINN, JR., 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
EDWARD DEANE, GEORGE 
WIHBEY, and JASON 
CUNNINGHAM IN HIS 
CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY-
IN-FACT FOR WILLIAM 
CUNNINGHAM, for themselves 
and in the right and for the benefit 
of New Media Investors II-B, 
LLC, and New Media II-B, LLC, 
 
Plaintiffs Below, 
Appellees. 
 
 
§ 
§  No. 476, 2022 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  C.A. No. 2017-0346 
§                     
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: January 17, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
January 27, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On December 22, 2022, the appellant, Robert A. Maginn, Jr., filed a 
notice of appeal from the Court of Chancery’s November 1, 2022 post-trial 
2 
 
memorandum opinion and order.1  Because the opinion and order noted that 
“[f]urther proceedings are necessary to determine the method by which such 
members [of the nominal-defendant] will be identified and their recovery will be 
distributed,”2 the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to Maginn to show cause why 
this appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Supreme Court 
Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.   
(2) 
In his response to the notice to show cause, Maginn acknowledges that 
he filed the notice of appeal as a precautionary measure.  At the request of the Court, 
the appellees also responded to the notice to show cause.  The appellees contend that 
the appeal is premature and should be dismissed.  We agree. 
(3) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court 
is limited to the review of a trial court’s final judgment.3  An order is deemed final 
and appealable if the trial court has declared its intention that the order be the court’s 
final act in disposing of all justiciable matters within its jurisdiction.4  The Court of 
Chancery docket reflects that the parties have briefed their respective positions on a 
proposed course of action for distribution and a hearing is scheduled in the Court of 
Chancery for February 15, 2023.  In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the Court 
 
1 Deane v. Maginn, 2022 WL 16557974 (Del. Ch. Nov. 1, 2022), reargument denied, 2022 WL 
17216333 (Del. Ch. Nov. 23, 2022).  
2 Id. at *31. 
3 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
4 J. I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973). 
3 
 
of Chancery’s November 1, 2022 opinion and order was not intended to be the 
court’s final act in this case.  Maginn was therefore required to comply with the 
provisions of Rule 42 or await the Court of Chancery’s entry of a final order.  
Maginn’s filing fee for any future appeal from the Court of Chancery’s final 
judgment will be waived. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice