Case Title: Burnett, et al. v. Kalb

Citation: 

Docket Number: 331, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-07-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JONATHAN and AMY BURNETT 
and RONALD and EDITH 
COUNCIL,  
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
DAVID and BARBARA KALB, as 
Parents and Next Friends of 
BRIANNA KALB, a minor,  
 
           Plaintiffs Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 331, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. N12C-02-172 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: July 5, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 15, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 15th day of July 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On June 24, 2013, the Court received the notice of appeal of 
Jonathan and Amy Burnett (the “Burnetts”) from the Superior Court’s 
interlocutory order dated May 8, 2013, which denied their motion for 
summary judgment.1  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 6 and 42, a timely 
                                                 
1 The Superior Court’s order was docketed on May 9, 2013. 
 
2
notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s order should have been filed on 
or before June 10, 2013.2 
 
(2) 
On June 24, 2013, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Rule 
29(b) directing the Burnetts to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as untimely filed.  The Burnetts, through counsel, filed a response 
to the notice to show cause on July 3, 2013.  Counsel states that he believed 
he had 30 days from June 17, 2013, the date of the Superior Court’s order 
denying certification of the interlocutory appeal, in which to file his notice 
of appeal.  Counsel further requests that the Court rely upon Rule 42(c) (1) 
to extend the time for acceptance of the notice of appeal.  Counsel, finally, 
represents that the issues involved in this appeal meet the criteria required 
for this Court’s acceptance of an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 
42(b).3    
 
(3) 
Rule 6(a) (1) requires that a notice of appeal be filed within 30 
days after entry upon the docket of the judgment, order or decree from 
which the appeal is taken.  Rule 42(d) (i) requires that the notice of appeal 
from an interlocutory order be filed in this Court within 30 days after the 
entry upon the docket of the order from which the appeal is taken.  Pursuant 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 11(a).  On July 5, 2013, the Court received the appeal of Ronald and Edith 
Council (the “Councils”) from the same interlocutory order.  In order to be timely, the 
Councils’ notice of appeal should likewise have been filed on or before June 10, 2013.  
3 On July 5, 2013, counsel for the Councils joined in the Burnetts’ response to the notice 
to show cause.   
 
3
to Rule 10(a), a notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk 
of this Court within the applicable time period in order to be effective.  This 
Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Burnetts’ untimely appeal.4  
Accordingly, their appeal must be dismissed.5 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeals are 
DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
5 The Councils’ appeal also must be dismissed on the same ground.