Title: Anchor Investments, Inc. v. Daystar Sills, Inc.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANCHOR INVESTMENTS, INC., a § 
Delaware Corporation, 
 
 
§ 
No. 265, 2007 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Sussex County 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
DAYSTAR SILLS, INC., a Delaware § 
Corporation, 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. 06L-05-026 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 4, 2007 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 21, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 21st day of June 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
This interlocutory appeal arises from a Superior Court mechanics’ lien 
action filed by plaintiff below/appellee Daystar Sills, Inc. (“Daystar”) against 
defendant below/appellant Anchor Investments, Inc. (“Anchor”) and other 
defendants.  In the underlying action, Anchor sought to dismiss the complaint for 
lack of jurisdiction and venue and for Daystar’s failure to comply with statutory 
requirements.  Anchor also sought to dismiss Daystar’s claims that were brought 
under a theory of quantum meruit.  By decision dated April 12, 2007 and docketed 
 
2
on April 30, 2007 (“decision”), the Superior Court denied Anchor’s motions to 
dismiss. 
 
(2) 
Anchor has petitioned this Court to accept an interlocutory appeal 
from the Superior Court’s decision.  By order dated May 29, 2007, the Superior 
Court denied Anchor’s application for certification of an interlocutory appeal.1  
Anchor’s supplemental notice of appeal followed.2 
 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of this Court.3  The Court concludes, in the exercise of discretion, that 
the Superior Court’s decision does not fit the requirements and criteria for 
accepting an interlocutory appeal.4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(c) (2007). 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(iii). 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b).