Title: Shonts v. McDowell et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MYEARE K. SHONTS, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
KENNETH ALBERT McDOWELL 
and KENNETH L. McDOWELL, 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 439, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court  
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  C.A. No. 01C-12-013 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 6, 2003 
  Decided: October 9, 2003 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 9th day of October 2003, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On September 4, 2003, the plaintiff below, Myeare Shonts, filed a 
notice of interlocutory appeal with this Court, seeking to appeal from an 
interlocutory ruling of the Superior Court dated August 5, 2003.  The Superior 
Court’s ruling denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on the 
plaintiff’s claim of negligent entrustment but granted the defendants’ motion for 
summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of reckless entrustment.  On September 
10, 2003, the defendants filed a cross-appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of 
their motion for summary on the negligent entrustment claim. 
 
 
-2-
(2) 
The Superior Court docket reflects that, despite filing notices of 
interlocutory appeal in this Court, neither party filed the proper procedure under 
Supreme Court Rule 42(c) to seek certification of an interlocutory appeal in the 
Superior Court.  Instead, the parties requested the Superior Court to certify 
specific questions of law pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 41.   
(3) 
The Superior Court wrote to the parties, noting the procedural 
discrepancies, and gave the parties an opportunity to clarify their intent.  
Plaintiff’s counsel responded with a letter that indicated plaintiff’s desire to seek 
the Superior Court’s certification of the specific questions of law articulated by 
plaintiff.   
(4) 
On October 2, 2003, the Superior Court denied the parties’ 
respective applications for certification of questions of law under Supreme Court 
Rule 41.  The Superior Court stated that its ruling on the parties’ cross-motions 
for summary judgment was the law of the case and that the procedures for 
certification under Rule 41 therefore did not apply.1 
(5) 
The record reflects that the parties have failed to follow the proper 
procedures for certifying an interlocutory appeal to this Court under Supreme 
                                                 
1 Delaware courts may certify questions of law to this Court if, among other things, the 
certifying court has not decided the question or questions in the case.  See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 
41(a)(i). 
 
 
-3-
Court Rule 42.  Both interlocutory appeals could be refused on that basis.  Even 
if we assume, however, that the parties’ respective applications for interlocutory 
review complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 42, we nonetheless 
conclude that the applications for interlocutory review do not meet the 
substantive requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused on 
that basis. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within 
interlocutory appeals are REFUSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice