Title: Brooks-McCollum v. Shareef,et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CATHY D. BROOKS-MCCOLLUM 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
KENNETH SHAREEF, RENFORD 
BREVETT, MAUDY MELVILLE, 
VALERIE LONGHURST, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 294, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 147-N 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 18, 2004 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
September 30, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 30th day of September 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On July 13, 2004, plaintiff-appellant Cathy Brooks-McCollum filed 
a notice of appeal from a bench ruling pronounced by the Court of Chancery on 
June 24, 2004, which denied Brooks-McCollum’s motion to compel.  The Court 
of Chancery interpreted the motion to compel as a motion for advancement of 
costs and a motion for a declaration that she is entitled to indemnification.  The 
Court of Chancery denied Brooks-McCollum’s request for advancement of costs 
 
- 2 -
to pursue her claims of unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and slander 
against the defendants and denied, as premature, her request for indemnification.  
 
(2) 
On July 15, 2004, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice, pursuant to 
Supreme Court 29(b), directing Brooks-McCollum to show cause why this appeal 
should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 in 
taking an appeal from an interlocutory order.  On July 29, 2004, the Court of 
Chancery issued its written order supporting its June 24 bench ruling.  On August 
3, Brooks-McCollum filed a response to the notice to show cause and also 
separately filed a notice of interlocutory appeal in case No. 335, 2004. 
(3) 
It is clear from the record that the Court of Chancery’s June 24 
bench ruling and its July 29 supporting order are interlocutory.  Although the 
Court of Chancery has jurisdiction to hear and determine all “actions for 
advancement of expenses or indemnification” in a summary proceeding,1 
Brooks-McCollum filed her motion to compel such relief as part of a larger 
action alleging, among other things, defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty and 
slander.  Her lawsuit is still pending before the Court of Chancery.   
 
(4) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, the jurisdiction of this Court is 
limited to the review of the final judgment of a trial court.2 An order is deemed 
                                                           
1 8 Del. C. § 145(k). 
2   Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
 
- 3 -
final if the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order be the 
court’s “final act” in the case.3  To date, no final judgment has been rendered on 
the merits of Brooks-McCollum’s claims.  Accordingly, this appeal must be 
dismissed.4   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                           
3  J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 
(Del. 1973). 
4 By separate order, this Court has addressed Brooks-McCollum’s petition for an 
interlocutory appeal in case No. 335, 2004.