Title: ICATECH Corporation, et al. v. Facchina

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ICATECH CORPORATION and 
EMPRESAS ICA, S.A.B. DE. C.V., 
 
Defendants and Counterclaim 
Plaintiffs-Below, 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
PAUL V. FACCHINA, SR., individually 
and as Sellers’ Representative, 
 
Plaintiff and Counterclaim 
Defendant-Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 434, 2020 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N17C-09-163 
§   
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 19, 2021  
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
January 22, 2021   
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellants’ response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On December 21, 2020, the appellants, ICATECH Corporation and 
Empresas ICA, S.A.B. De. C.V. (collectively, “ICATech”), filed a notice of appeal 
from the Superior Court’s post-trial opinion, dated October 29, 2020, and final order 
and judgment, dated  November 24, 2020.  That same day, ICATech filed a motion 
2 
 
for attorneys’ fees and costs and the appellee, Paul V. Facchina, Sr. (“the Seller 
Representative”), filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in the Superior Court.   
(2) 
On January 7, 2021, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing 
ICATech to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to 
comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent 
interlocutory order.  In the response to the notice to show cause, ICATech 
emphasizes that the November 24, 2020 order was captioned “Final Order and 
Judgment,” but acknowledges that the order directed the parties to brief their 
entitlement to, and the amount of, any fees and costs and that this Court is likely to 
find the appeal interlocutory.  The Seller Representative’s position is that this appeal 
is interlocutory. 
(3) 
After careful consideration of the response to the notice to show cause, 
we conclude that this appeal must be dismissed as interlocutory.  Absent compliance 
with Supreme Court Rule 42 (“Rule 42”), this Court is limited to the review of a trial 
court’s final judgment.1  An order is deemed final and appealable if the trial court 
has declared its intention that the order be the court’s final act in disposing of all 
 
1 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
3 
 
justiciable matters within its jurisdiction.2  A judgment is not final and appealable 
when there is an outstanding application for attorneys’ fees.3   
(4) 
Applications for attorneys’ fees are currently pending in the Superior 
Court.  This appeal is therefore interlocutory, requiring compliance with Rule 42.  In 
the absence of compliance with Rule 42, this appeal must be dismissed.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.  The 
filing fee paid by ICATech shall apply to any future appeal it files from a final order 
entered in the case. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
        Chief Justice 
 
 
2 J.I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973).  
3 In re Rural Metro Corp. S’holders Litig., 2014 WL 7010818, at *1 (Del. Dec. 2, 2014); Emerald 
Partners v. Berlin, 811 A.2d 788, 790–91 (Del. 2001).