Title: Hludzinski et al. v. Pauley

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT HLUDZINSKI, R.R. 
SEASIDE, INC., R.R. BAYSIDE, 
INC., R.R. OUTLET MALLS, INC., 
and CHARTER OAK PARTNERS, 
LTD., 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
JASON, BRYAN, LOUISE, and 
PATRICK PAULEY, 
 
Plaintiffs Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 511, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  C.A. Nos. 99C-06-030 and  
§  00C-08-042 (Consolidated) 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 10, 2002 
  Decided: September 12, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 12th day of September 2002, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendants below, Robert Hludzinski, R.R. Seaside, Inc., 
R.R. Bayside, Inc., R.R. Outlet Malls, Inc., and Charter Oak Partners, Ltd. 
(collectively, “the Outlet Defendants”), have petitioned this Court, pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from two interlocutory orders of the 
Superior Court dated August 21, 2002 and September 6, 2002.  The Superior 
Court=s August 21, 2002 order granted summary judgment in favor of 
 
 
2 
defendants Delaware State Police, the State of Delaware, and the 
Department of Public Safety.  The Superior Court’s September 6, 2002 order 
denied the Outlet Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  The Outlet 
Defendants also have filed a motion seeking a stay of the Superior Court 
trial, which is scheduled to begin on September 17, 2002.   
(2) 
On September 9, 2002, the Superior Court denied the Outlet 
Defendants= application to certify an interlocutory appeal to this Court from 
the August 21, 2002 order.  The Superior Court also denied the Outlet 
Defendants’ motion for a stay of the trial date.  The Superior Court has not 
yet acted on the Outlet Defendants’ second application for certification of an 
interlocutory appeal and motion for a stay of trial relating to the September 
6, 2002 order. 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in extraordinary cases. 
(4) 
In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that 
the application for interlocutory review does not meet the requirements of 
Supreme Court Rule 42(b) as to either the August 21, 2002 order or the 
September 6, 2002 order and should be refused.  Given our refusal of the 
 
 
3 
interlocutory appeal, the Outlet Defendants’ motion for a stay of the 
Superior Court proceedings is moot. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.  The motion for a stay is MOOT. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
_/s/ Myron T. Steele_____________ 
Justice