Title: Miller v. Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KENNETH A. MILLER, JR. and
SANGAY MILLER, his wife,
Plaintiffs Below-
Appellants,
            and
BELL ATLANTIC-
DELAWARE, INC.,
        Plaintiff Below-
        Appellee,
v.
PATRELL Y. PURCELL, et al.,
Defendants Below-
Appellees.
§
§
§  No. 638, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. No. 97C-05-054
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Submitted:  January 4, 2002
  
  Decided:  April 11, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 11th day of April 2002, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
Plaintiffs-appellants, Kenneth A. Miller, Jr. and Sangay Miller, filed
an appeal from the November 15, 2001 order of the Superior Court granting the
2
motion of plaintiff-appellee, Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., to enforce a worker’s
compensation lien.
(2)
On December 19, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellants to show cause why the appeal
should not be dismissed because it is from an interlocutory, and not a final,
order.  On January 4, 2002,1 the appellants filed a response to the notice to show
cause.  In the response, the appellants concede that the Superior Court’s
November 15, 2001 order was not certified as a final order pursuant to Superior
Court Civil Rule 54(b).
(3)
When a civil action involves multiple claims and multiple parties, a
judgment regarding any claim or any party does not become final until the entry
of the last judgment that resolves all claims as to all parties unless an
interlocutory ruling as to a claim or party is certified pursuant to Superior Court
Civil Rule 54(b).2  There has been no such certification here.
(4)
The Court has concluded that the Superior Court’s November 15,
2001 order is an interlocutory, and not a final, order.3  The appellants have failed
                                                          
1Beyond the 10-day deadline set forth in the notice.
2Harrison v. Ramunno, 730 A.2d 653, 654 (Del. 1999).
3Showell Poultry v. Delmarva Poultry Corp., 146 A.2d 794, 795-96 (Del. 1958).  See also
Miller v. Suburban Propane Gas Corp., 565 A.2d 913, 914 (Del. 1989).
3
to comply with the procedural requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(c) and (d)
and, absent compliance, this Court must decline to exercise its appellate
jurisdiction.4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
_/s/ Myron T. Steele_________________
Justice
                                                          
4Stroud v. Milliken Enterprises, Inc., 552 A.2d 476, 481-82 (Del. 1989).