Case Title: Layne, et al. v. Gavilon Grain, LLC, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 414, 2015

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-08-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHAWANA LAYNE (f/k/a Shawana 
Singleton) as guardian ad litem and next 
friend to FRANK LEE LAYNE, JR., 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
GAVILON GRAIN, LLC (d/b/a Peavey 
Company), and JAIR CABRERA,  
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 414, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court  
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. N12C-12-057 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 17, 2015 
  Decided: August 27, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 27th day of August 2015, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Shawana Layne as guardian ad litem 
and next friend to Frank Lee Layne, Jr. (“Layne”), has petitioned this Court 
under Supreme Court Rule 42 to accept an appeal from an interlocutory 
order of the Superior Court dated July 10, 2015, granting a motion for 
summary judgment filed by Gavilon Grain, LLC (“Gavilon”) and Jair 
Cabrera.  The Superior Court’s opinion determined that Layne was a special 
employee of Gavilon and, therefore, Layne’s personal injury claims were 
 
 
2 
barred by the exclusivity provision of the Delaware Workers’ Compensation 
Act. 
(2) 
Layne filed the application for certification to take an 
interlocutory appeal in the Superior Court on July 17, 2015.  The Superior 
Court denied the certification application on August 13, 2015.  Although the 
Superior Court analyzed Layne’s application for certification under the 
former version of Supreme Court Rule 42, which was amended effective 
May 15, 2015, it engaged in a thoughtful analysis under the old version that 
remains relevant and we agree with its recommendation that certification 
should be denied.  As the Superior Court noted, its determination that Layne 
was a special employee of Gavilon applied legal tests that are set out in prior 
decisions of this Court.1  Moreover, interlocutory review of the Superior 
Court’s ruling will not substantially reduce the pending litigation or 
otherwise serve the considerations of justice.2 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court.  In the exercise of its discretion, this Court 
                                                 
1 See Porter v. Pathfinder Services, Inc., 683 A.2d 40 (Del. 1996); Lester C. Newton 
Trucking Co. v. Neal, 204 A.2d 393 (Del. 1964). 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii)(G)-(H) (effective May 15, 2015). 
 
 
3 
has concluded that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the 
requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.3 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
3 The Court is issuing a contemporaneous order refusing the interlocutory appeal filed in 
a companion case, Discover Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gavilon Grain, LLC, No. 421, 2015.