Case Title: Secretary Claire DeMatteis v. RiseDelaware Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 57, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-04-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SECRETARY CLAIRE 
DEMATTEIS in her official 
capacity as Secretary of the 
Delaware Department of Human 
Resources and Co-Chair of the 
State Employee Benefits 
Committee, DIRECTOR 
CERRON CADE in his official 
capacity as Director of the 
Delaware Office of Management 
and Budget and Co-Chair of the 
State Employee Benefits 
Committee, DELAWARE 
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 
RESOURCES, DELAWARE 
STATE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 
COMMITTEE, and DELAWARE 
DIVISION OF STATEWIDE 
BENEFITS, 
 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
RISEDELAWARE INC., 
KAREN PETERSON, and 
THOMAS PENOZA, 
 
Plaintiffs Below, 
Appellees. 
 
 
§ 
§  No. 57, 2023 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  C.A. No. N22C-09-526 
§                     
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 3, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
April 3, 2023 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
2 
 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellants—Secretary Claire DeMatteis in her official capacity as 
Secretary of the Delaware Department of Human Resources and Co-Chair of the 
State Employee Benefits Committee, Director Cerron Cade in his official capacity 
as Director  of the Delaware Office of Management and Budget and Co-Chair of the 
State Employee Benefits Committee, Delaware Department of Human Resources, 
Delaware State Employee Benefits Committee, and Delaware Division of Statewide 
Benefits (together, the “State”)—have filed a notice of appeal from the Superior 
Court’s February 8, 2023 order denying an application filed by the appellees—
RiseDelaware 
Inc., 
Karen 
Peterson, 
and 
Thomas 
Penoza 
(together, 
“RiseDelaware”)—for attorneys’ fees (the “Order”).  Because the court’s order did 
not appear to be a final order, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to the State to 
show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for its failure to comply with 
Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.  
(2) 
The State has responded to the notice to show cause and argues that the 
Superior Court intended the Order to be its final act in the case.  At the Court’s 
request, RiseDelaware also responded to the notice to show cause.  RiseDelaware 
argues that this appeal should be dismissed as interlocutory.  We agree. 
3 
 
(3) 
A recitation of the procedural history of this case is instructive.  
RiseDelaware filed its complaint against the State in September 2022, challenging 
the State’s decision to require that all State retirees enroll in a Medicare Advantage 
Plan or lose their State-funded health benefits (the “Policy”). Counts I and II of the 
complaint alleged violations of the Administrative Procedures Act.  Count III sought 
a declaration that the Secretary of the Delaware Department of Human Resources 
failed to execute her duties in violation of then-extant 29 Del. C. § 9604(8)1 (the 
“Communications Claim”) and a declaration that the State violated §§10115-10118 
of the APA.  On October 4, 2022, RiseDelaware filed a motion to stay the Policy, 
pending a final trial on the merits.  On October 19, 2022, the Superior Court issued 
a decision granting the motion to stay (the “Decision”).  Shortly after that, the State 
announced that it would extend health insurance and benefits to State retirees as 
ordered by the Decision through the calendar year 2023.  
(4) 
In November 2022, RiseDelaware and the State filed cross-motions for 
summary judgment on the Communications Claim, and RiseDelaware filed an 
application for attorneys’ fees.  On November 18, 2022, the parties stipulated to the 
dismissal of the Communications Claim.  The parties also filed a proposed 
stipulation and order for the resolution of RiseDelaware’s application for attorneys’ 
 
1 As of January 26, 2023, the duties of the Secretary of Human Resources are codified in 29 Del. 
C. § 9603. 
4 
 
fees.  On December 2, 2022, RiseDelaware filed a motion to amend its complaint to 
add an additional claim for declaratory judgment and a request for attorneys’ fees in 
its prayer for relief.  On December 6, 2022, the Superior Court rejected the proposed 
stipulation and order and directed the parties to file a stipulation “reflective of the 
disposition of the case.”  Also on December 6, 2022, the Superior Court directed 
RiseDelaware to re-notice its motion to amend the complaint and for the State to 
respond to the motion by December 20, 2022.  The State filed its opposition to 
RiseDelaware’s motion to amend its complaint the following day. 
(5) 
On December 16, 2022, in accordance with the Superior Court’s 
direction, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order for entry of final 
judgment.  The parties stipulated that, with the exception of the Superior Court’s 
ruling on RiseDelaware’s motion to amend the complaint and application for 
attorneys’ fees, the action was ripe for the entry of a final judgment.  The stipulation 
and the proposed order for entry of final judgment also declares that “the Parties 
agree that the Decision effectively grants [RiseDelaware] the complete relief sought 
in Counts I, II and the remaining paragraph of Count III[2] of the Complaint, and 
constitutes the [Superior] Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on these 
claims.”  On December 19, 2022, the Superior Court denied RiseDelaware’s motion 
 
2 Paragraphs 102-105 comprised Count III. The parties had previously stipulated to the dismissal 
of paragraphs 102-104 (the Communications Claim). 
5 
 
to amend its complaint as moot. The Superior Court took no action on the stipulation 
and proposed order for entry of final judgment. 
(6) 
On February 8, 2023, the Superior Court issued the Order denying 
RiseDelaware’s fee application.  In the Order, the Superior Court expressly 
disavowed that it had made any findings of fact in the Decision, despite the parties’ 
agreement to the contrary as recited in the stipulation and proposed order for entry 
of final judgment.  Although the Order only addressed the issue of attorneys’ fees, 
it concludes with the sentence, “No further order of this Court is needed to close the 
case.”  But the Superior Court’s failure to enter the proposed order for entry of final 
judgment—again, submitted at the Superior Court’s request and the form and 
substance of which was agreed to by the parties—renders the finality and scope of 
the Order and the Decision uncertain.  Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal for 
the State’s failure to comply with Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an 
interlocutory order. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal be DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice