Title: Pirestani v. Reagan, et al.

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, 
 
Cross-Petitioner Below, 
Appellee, 
 
and 
 
ATTORNEY AD LITEM, 
 
Appellee. 
         
§ 
§   
§  No. 112, 2018 
§   
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. 17950-N 
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  March 5, 2018 
 
 
 
 
    Decided:   March 29, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
 
This 29th day of March 2018, upon consideration of the notice of appeal and 
the notice of interlocutory appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On March 5, 2018, the appellant, Joseph Daniel Pirestani, filed a notice 
of appeal from the following Court of Chancery rulings: (i) a September 15, 2017 
letter from the guardianship case manager regarding the powers and duties of the 
guardian; (ii) a November 8, 2017 order denying as moot Pirestani’s motion to alter 
or amend the September 15, 2017 letter; (iii) a November 8, 2017 order clarifying 
2 
 
the powers and duties of the guardian; and (iv) a January 31, 2018 order denying 
most of Pirestani’s motion for reargument of the November 8, 2017 orders, but 
allowing the issue of whether the guardian should continue serving a guardian of the 
property to proceed.  Pirestani also filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from: (i) a 
December 28, 2017 letter stating that the Court of Chancery would consider exhibits 
submitted by Pirestani and that there was no need for Pirestani’s motion for 
admission of additional evidence; and (ii) a January 31, 2018 order denying 
Pirestani’s motion for reargument of the December 28, 2017 letter.   
(2) 
Although Pirestani now characterizes one January 31, 2018 order as 
final and the other January 31, 2018 order as interlocutory, he applied for 
certification of interlocutory appeals from both orders in the Court of Chancery on 
February 14, 2018.  The Court of Chancery denied certification on February 16, 
2018.  
(3) 
An order is deemed final and appealable if the trial court has declared 
its intention that the order be the court’s final act in disposing of all justiciable 
matters within its jurisdiction.1  Neither January 31, 2018 order is final.  Both orders 
contemplate additional proceedings in the Court of Chancery.  The Court of 
Chancery docket also reflects that the parties continue to litigate their disputes.  We 
therefore treat both of Pirestani’s appeals as interlocutory.   
                                                 
1 J.I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973). 
3 
 
(4) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of the Court.2  In the exercise of our discretion, we have concluded that 
the applications for interlocutory review do not meet the strict standards for 
certification under Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeals are REFUSED.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v).