Title: Anderson v. General Motors, LLC

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROLAND ANDERSON, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, 
 
Defendant Below 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 67, 2024 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  C.A. No. N24C-01-002 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 17, 2024 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 20, 2024 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Roland Anderson, filed this appeal from a Superior 
Court order denying his motion for reargument of the court’s dismissal of his 
complaint.  Anderson moved to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.  After the 
Court denied the motion, the Senior Court Clerk sent Anderson a letter on May 22, 
2024, directing him to pay the filing fee by June 5, 2024, or a notice to show cause 
would issue. 
(2) 
Anderson then filed several documents in which he seemed to seek to 
“withdraw” or dismiss the appeal without prejudice and, while not entirely clear, 
2 
 
perhaps request additional relief from the Court.  One of the documents, which 
Anderson filed on June 5, 2024, attached an order that was entered by the Superior 
Court on May 29, 2024.  The Superior Court order addressed a “Motion to Stay” 
filed by Anderson on February 29, 2024.  The order noted that Anderson had filed 
the motion after filing this appeal, which “[a]rguably . . . divested [the Superior] 
Court of jurisdiction over the motion.”  The order further stated:  “Since then, the 
Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment of this Court and remanded the file here.  
In order to ensure the clarity of the docket in this Court, the Court rules the Motion 
to Stay at Item 13 on the docket is denied as moot.” 
(3) 
This Court has not yet ruled on the merits of the appeal or remanded 
the matter to the Superior Court, because Anderson has not yet satisfied the 
procedural requirements for perfecting the appeal, nor has briefing occurred.  In light 
of the document that Anderson filed on June 5 and his failure to heed the direction 
to pay the filing fee by June 5, on June 7, 2024, the Clerk’s office sent Anderson a 
letter acknowledging receipt of Anderson’s various filings; informing Anderson 
that, contrary to the Superior Court’s May 29 order, the appeal remained pending 
and the matter had not been remanded to Superior Court; and enclosing a notice 
directing Anderson to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for his 
failure to pay the filing fee by June 5 as previously directed. 
3 
 
(4) 
In response to the notice to show cause, Anderson again points to the 
Superior Court’s May 29 order stating that this Court affirmed the Superior Court 
and remanded the case.  He also states that some of his filings have not been 
addressed.  He does not address his failure to pay the filing fee.   
(5) 
Under the rules of this Court, a party filing an appeal must pay the 
applicable filing fees, unless the Court authorizes the commencement of the appeal 
without prepayment of fees on the grounds that the party is indigent.1  The Court 
denied Anderson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and provided him several 
opportunities to pay the filing fee; Anderson was also informed that the appeal had 
not been decided and the matter had not been remanded to Superior Court.  In light 
of Anderson’s failure to pay the filing fee, this appeal must be dismissed.2 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths 
Justice 
 
 
1 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 20(a), (h). 
2 E.g., Kostyshyn v. New Castle County, 2023 WL 7383740, at *1 (Del. Nov. 7, 2023).