Title: Williams v. The Bluffs Limited Partnership

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TERRY WILLIAMS, 
 
Plaintiff-Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
THE BLUFFS LIMITED 
PARTNERSHIP,  
 
Defendant-Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 291, 2014 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. N13C-10-359 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 11, 2014 
 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: July 1, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 1st day of July 2014, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Terry Williams, has petitioned this Court, under 
Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an interlocutory appeal from a Superior Court 
order dated May 13, 2014.  The Superior Court order granted the motion of the 
appellee, The Bluffs Limited Partnership (“The Bluffs”),1 to vacate a default 
judgment obtained by Williams.   
                                                 
1 According to papers filed by the appellee in the Superior Court, The Bluffs Limited Partnership 
is incorrectly named in the caption of the Superior Court complaint.  The appellee appears to 
have indicated that the relevant entity is The Bluffs Apartments, which is owned by Sheldon 
Limited Partnership, LP and managed by RIMSI Corp. 
2 
 
(2) 
Williams filed an application for certification of an interlocutory 
appeal and/or a stay of the proceedings in the Superior Court on May 19, 2014.  
The Bluffs responded to the certification application on May 29, 2014.  Williams 
filed this interlocutory appeal on June 2, 2014.   
(3) 
On June 5, 2014, the Superior Court denied Williams’ application for 
certification of an interlocutory appeal and/or a stay of the proceedings.  On June 
11, 2014, Williams filed a supplemental notice of appeal with the Superior Court’s 
order denying his certification application.    
(4) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances.2  
Having considered the Superior Court’s May 13, 2014 order and the Superior 
Court’s denial of Williams’ certification application, this Court has concluded that 
the application for interlocutory review does not meet the requirements of Supreme 
Court Rule 42 and should be refused. 
 
 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 42. 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this interlocutory appeal is 
REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice