Title: Rich Realty, Inc., et al. v. Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RICH REALTY, INC., CARSON M.  
§ 
 
 
 
GRAY, ADELIA H. GRAY, RICHARD E. § 
No. 163, 2011 
GRAY, JR., and JOSSLYN GRAY,  
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of  
 
Plaintiffs Below,  
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
 
Appellants,  
 
 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON, LLP§ 
and HAROLD I. SALMONS III, Esquire, 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. N09C-12-273  
 
Appellees.  
 
 
 
§  
 
Submitted: April 15, 2011 
Decided: 
April 21, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 21st day of April 2011, upon consideration of the notice and amended 
supplemental notice of interlocutory appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On April 4, 2011, plaintiffs/appellants, Rich Realty, Inc., Carson M. 
Gray, Adelia H. Gray, Richard E. Gray, Jr., and Josslyn Gray petitioned this Court 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an interlocutory appeal from the 
Superior Court’s order of March 15, 2011.1  By order dated April 7, 2011, the 
                                          
 
1 The March 15, 2011 order denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reargument of the Superior Court’s 
February 21, 2011 opinion that granted in part the defendants’ amended motion to dismiss. 
2 
 
Superior Court stayed the plaintiffs’ application for certification pending the 
court’s decision on the plaintiffs’ pending motion to amend complaint.2  
 
(2) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances.  We 
have examined the Superior Court’s March 15, 2011 order and underlying 
February 21, 2011 opinion according to the criteria set forth in Supreme Court 
Rule 42 and have concluded that exceptional circumstances meriting interlocutory 
review do not exist in this case. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED.     
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
2 It appears from the Superior Court docket that the plaintiffs’ motion to amend complaint was 
filed on March 2, 2011.