IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

330 HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC,

Petitioner Below,

Appellant,

v.

THE CITY OF REHOBOTH BEACH, a 

municipal corporation, THE BOARD OF 

COMMISSIONERS OF REHOBOTH 

BEACH, the governing body of The City 

of Rehoboth Beach, and THE 

PLANNINING COMMISSION OF 

REHOBOTH BEACH,

Respondents Below,

Appellees.

§

§ 

§ No. 338, 2024

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. S22C-11-016

§ 

§ 

§

§ 

§ 

§

§ 

§ 

§

Submitted: September 4, 2024

Decided: October 1, 2024

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses, it 

appears to the Court that:

(1) 330 Hospitality Group, LLC (“330”) filed this appeal from the Superior 

Court’s opinion remanding the matter for the City of Rehoboth Beach (“City”) to 

hold a new hearing on 330’s application for a rezoning application. The Superior 

Court concluded that a new hearing was necessary because the City failed to create 

a proper record of the first hearing for review of 330’s petition for a writ of certiorari 
2

from the denial of its rezoning application. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice 

directing 330 to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for its failure 

to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent 

interlocutory order. 

(2) In response to the notice to show cause, 330 contends that the Superior 

Court’s decision is arguably final because the Superior Court did not retain 

jurisdiction and remanded the matter for the City to hold a new hearing instead of 

correcting or addressing defects in its previous decision. The City, Board of 

Commissioners of Rehoboth Breach, and Planning Commission of Rehoboth Beach 

argue that the Superior Court’s decision is not final because the matter was remanded 

for further proceedings. 

(3) Absent compliance with Rule 42, this Court is limited to the review of 

a trial court’s final judgment.1 “A final judgment is generally defined as one that 

determines the merits of the controversy or defines the rights of the parties and leaves 

nothing for future determination or consideration.”2 The Superior Court’s opinion

is not final because 330’s entitlement to a rezoning application has not been 

1

Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).

2

Showell Poultry, Inc. v. Delmarva Poultry Corp., 146 A.2d 794, 796 (Del.1958).
3

determined.

3

 Because 330 has not complied with the requirements of Rule 42, this 

interlocutory appeal must be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

that this appeal is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice

3

See, e.g., Mayor & Town Council of Town of Elsmere v. DiFrancesco, 953 A.2d 128, 130 (Del. 

2007) (holding that the Superior Court’s order remanding the matter to the town council was final 

because the town council could take no further action other than grant the application for 

subdivision); Del. Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs. v. Dolinger, 1999 WL 504324, at *1 (Del. Mar. 

16, 1999) (concluding that “the Superior Court’s order remanding the matter back to the DSS 

Hearing Officer for a new hearing is clearly an interlocutory order”); New Castle Cty. Dep’t. of 

Fin. v. Jefferson Plaza P’ship, 1994 WL 632635, at *1 (De. Nov. 7, 1994) (holding that a Superior 

Court decision remanding the matter for assessment board to rule on the merits of certain tax 

appeals was interlocutory).