Title: Sabree Environmental & Construction, Inc. v. Summit Dredging, LLC

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SABREE ENVIRONMENTAL &   
§ 
CONSTRUCTION, INC., 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
No. 21, 2016 
 
 
Defendant-Below,  
 
§  
 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§  
Court Below: Superior Court 
§  
of the State of Delaware 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. N14C-10-283 
SUMMIT DREDGING, LLC,  
§ 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
     
Plaintiff-Below,   
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  September 28, 2016 
Decided:  
October 12, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
This 12th day of October 2016, after careful consideration of the parties’ 
briefs and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the December 16, 2015 
judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed.  Sabree Environmental & 
Construction, Inc., now known as Sabree, Inc., has appealed from a Superior Court 
order finding that the court had personal jurisdiction over Sabree.  The Superior 
Court also denied Sabree’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered by the 
Prothonotary against Sabree.  In the Superior Court, Sabree focused its argument 
on the lack of personal jurisdiction over Sabree in the hope of getting out from 
under the default judgment.  On appeal, Sabree raises a number of grounds for 
2 
 
reversal: (1) it was plain error for the Prothonotary to enter a default judgment 
against it because the amount in controversy was not a sum certain; (2) because it 
had informally appeared under Rule 55(b), the Superior Court erred in refusing to 
open the default judgment; (3) the Superior Court made procedural errors when it 
determined it had personal jurisdiction over Sabree; and (4) its failure to file a 
responsive pleading or motion was excusable neglect.  The problem is, none of 
Sabree’s arguments on appeal were fairly presented to the Superior Court in its 
Motion under Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b).  The excusable neglect argument 
was raised in a footnote in Sabree’s motion, but standalone arguments in footnotes 
are usually not considered fairly raised in any court.  Further, Sabree did not 
pursue its excusable neglect claim at oral argument on its Rule 60(b) motion, 
instead opting to focus on the alleged lack of personal jurisdiction.  Although 
Sabree urges us to review the newly-raised issues on appeal under a plain error 
standard, we apply the exceptions to Supreme Court Rule 8 parsimoniously, and 
only where a trial court’s failure to confront an issue “is basic, serious and 
fundamental” in character and clearly results in “manifest injustice.”1  Sabree has 
not met this rigorous standard.   
 
 
                                          
 
1 Cassidy v. Cassidy, 689 A.2d 1182, 1184 (Del. 1997) (quoting Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 
1096, 1100 (Del. 1986)). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the final judgment of the  
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
Justice