Title: Agilent Technologies v. Delpizzo

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES and 
HEWLETT PACKARD CO., 
 
Appellees Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
ALBERT DELPIZZO, 
 
Appellant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  Nos. 549/550, 2004  
§    (Consolidated) 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below – Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 03A-07-005 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: February 14, 2005 
  Decided: March 10, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 10th day of March 2005, upon consideration of the appellee’s 
motions to dismiss and the appellants’ respective responses thereto, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellants filed separate appeals from an order of the 
Superior Court, which reversed a decision of the Industrial Accident Board 
(“IAB”) and remanded the matter for a hearing on the merits of the 
appellee’s petition for compensation due.  The appellee has filed separate 
motions to dismiss each appeal on the ground that the appeals are 
 
2
interlocutory and that neither appellant has complied with Supreme Court 
Rule 42 in seeking to appeal the Superior Court’s interlocutory order.      
(2) 
The appellants each filed a response in opposition to the 
appellee’s motions to dismiss.  After carefully considering the parties’ 
respective positions, we have concluded that the appeal must be dismissed.  
The Superior Court’s order reversing the IAB’s decision, which dismissed 
DelPizzo’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, and remanding the case for 
further action is clearly interlocutory, and appellants have made no attempt 
to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42.  The further action required by the 
IAB is more than “ministerial” in nature.1  It requires the IAB to decide 
DelPizzo’s claim and fashion an appropriate final judgment on the merits of 
the petition.2   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motions to dismiss 
are GRANTED.  The within appeals hereby are DISMISSED.3 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice 
                                                 
1 Pollard v. The Placers, Inc., 692 A.2d 879, 880-81 (Del. 1997). 
2 Mountaire Farms, Inc. v. Showell, 2003 WL 728558 (Del. Feb. 28, 2003). 
3 In the event that either of the appellants files another appeal in this same proceeding, 
this Court’s fee will be waived.