Title: Middlebrook v. Ayres

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
NIKERRAY MIDDLEBROOK, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CAROLINE P. AYRES, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 48, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court BelowSuperior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 01C-03-006 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 10, 2002 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 2, 2002 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 2nd day of July 2002, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Nikerray Middlebrook, filed this appeal 
from an order of the Superior Court dated January 16, 2002.  The January 16 
order denied Middlebrook’s motion for relief from judgment1 from a 
Superior Court order dated November 27, 2001.  The November 27 order 
dismissed, without prejudice, Middlebrook’s complaint for legal malpractice 
                                                 
1 Middlebrook captioned his motion as a “Motion for Relief from Judgment” 
under Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b).  The Superior Court considered the motion under 
Rule 60(b) and also considered the motion, alternatively, as a motion for reargument 
under Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e).  The Superior Court denied the motion under both 
rules. 
 
2
because of his failure to properly serve the defendant-appellee, Caroline 
Ayres.    
(2) 
We have reviewed this matter carefully and have determined 
that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed.  The Superior 
Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Middlebrook’s Rule 60(b) 
motion.2  Moreover, to the extent that Middlebrook seeks to challenge the 
Superior Court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to properly serve 
Ayres, we note that the Superior Court’s dismissal was without prejudice, 
and thus Middlebrook is free to refile his complaint.  A dismissal without 
prejudice is, by its terms, interlocutory in nature and is not presently subject 
to review absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42.3   
(3) 
As an aside, we note that Ayres is a member of the Delaware 
Bar.  As part of the annual lawyer registration process, Ayres appointed the 
Clerk of the Delaware Supreme Court as her agent for service of process.  If 
Middlebrook chooses to refile his complaint in the Superior Court, he may 
seek to serve the Clerk of this Court, Ayres’ designated agent, in lieu of 
serving Ayres personally. 
                                                 
2 See Wife B. v. Husband B., 395 A.2d 358, 359 (Del. 1978) (a motion for relief 
from judgment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will be set aside 
only for an abuse). 
3 Whitney v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., Del. Supr., No. 315, 1985, Horsey, J. 
(May 29, 1986). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice