Title: Bristow Helicopters, Inc. v. Guadalupe Barrera, et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRISTOW HELICOPTERS, INC., 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 121, 2013 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
GUADALUPE BARRERA, 
 
§ 
C.A. No. N12C-05-008  
individually, and as 
 
 
§ 
(CONSOLIDATED)  
Co-Representative of the Estate of 
§ 
Omar Alejandro Barrera (deceased); § 
and JULIANA BARRERA, 
 
§  
individually, and as 
 
 
§  
Co-Representative of the Estate of 
§ 
Omar Alejandro Barrera  (deceased), § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Plaintiffs Below,  
 
§ 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 26, 2013 
 
Decided: 
March 28, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28th day of March 2013, upon consideration of the notice and 
supplemental notice of interlocutory appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On March 18, 2013, defendant/appellant, Bristow Helicopters, 
Inc. (hereinafter “Bristow”), petitioned this Court pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 42 to accept an interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court’s order of 
February 20, 2013 that denied Bristow’s motion to reopen under Superior 
2 
 
Court Civil Rule 60(b).  By order dated March 19, 2013, the Superior Court 
denied Bristow’s application for certification. 
(2) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional 
circumstances.  Having examined the transcript of the February 19, 2013 
hearing held on Bristow’s motion to reopen, the February 20, 2013 order 
denying the motion to reopen, the underlying November 30, 2012 opinion 
denying Bristow’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, and the 
criteria set forth in Supreme Court Rule 42, we have concluded that 
exceptional circumstances meriting interlocutory review do not exist in this 
case. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.     
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
Justice