Title: Pirestani v. Reagan

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSEPH DANIEL PIRESTANI,  
 
Cross-Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
KEVIN J. REAGAN, 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellee, 
 
and 
 
ATTORNEY AD LITEM, 
 
Appellee. 
         
§ 
§   
§  No. 299, 2018 
§   
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.M. No. 17950-N 
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  June 7, 2018 
 
 
 
 
      Decided:     June 11, 2018 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
 
This 11th day of June 2018, having considered the notice of appeal from an 
interlocutory order under Supreme Court Rule 42, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 7, 2018, the appellant, Joseph Daniel Pirestani, filed a notice 
of interlocutory appeal from a Court of Chancery order, dated January 31, 2018, 
denying his motions for admission of additional evidence, and a Court of Chancery 
order, dated May 8, 2018, denying his motion for reargument of the January 31, 2018 
order.  Pirestani filed an application for certification of an interlocutory appeal on 
2 
 
May 18, 2018.  The Court of Chancery denied the application for certification on 
May 23, 2018.  
(2) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of the Court1 and are granted only in exceptional circumstances.2  In the 
exercise of our discretion, we have concluded that the application for interlocutory 
review does not meet the strict standards for certification under Supreme Court Rule 
42(b) and should be refused. 
(3) 
This is the third interlocutory appeal Pirestani has filed in three months 
relating to the guardianship proceeding in the Court of Chancery, C.M. No. 17950-
N.  None of the appeals met the standards for certification under Rule 42.  The Court 
will not take any action on Pirestani’s future notices of appeal or petitions relating 
to C.M. No. 17950-N until he pays the filing fee or files a motion to proceed in forma 
pauperis in those future matters.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED and that no action will be taken on Pirestani’s future notices of  
 
 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 
3 
 
appeal or petitions relating to C.M. No. 17950-N until he pays the filing fee or files 
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in those future matters.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice