IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RICHARD BLANCH, VIVIANNA 

BLANCH, RED BRIDGE & STONE, 

LLC and CLOVIS HOLDINGS LLC,

Defendants, Nominal 

Defendant, Counterclaim and 

Third-Party Plaintiffs-Below, 

Appellants,

v.

STONE & PAPER INVESTORS, LLC,

and CLOVIS HOLDINGS LLC,

Plaintiffs and Counterclaim 

Defendants-Below,

Appellees, 

and

JAD TRADING LLC, DIAMOND 

CARTER TRADING, LLC, JOHN 

DIAMOND, KANOKPAN KHUMPOO, 

ALBERT CARTER, ELIZABETH 

CARTER, EISENBERG & BLAU CPAS, 

P.C., RICHARD EISENBERG, and DD & 

COMPANY, LLP

Counterclaim and Third Party

Defendants-Below,

Appellees.

§

§ 

§ No. 78, 2023

§ 

§ Court Below—Court of Chancery

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. 2018-0394

§ 

§ 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Submitted: March 24, 2023

Decided: April 6, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
2

ORDER

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

appears to the Court that:

(1) On March 2, 2023, Defendants, Nominal Defendant, Counterclaim and 

Third-Party Plaintiffs-Below/Appellants Richard Blanch, Vivianna Blanch, Red 

Bridge & Stone LLC and Clovis Holdings LLC (collectively, “Appellants”) filed a 

notice of appeal from multiple opinions and orders of the Court of Chancery in a 

breach-of-fiduciary-duty action. The last order appealed was a February 1, 2023 

order denying motions for reargument and for leave to file a reply brief. In a letter 

dated February 9, 2023, the Appellants asked the Court of Chancery to clarify 

whether the February 1, 2023 order was a final judgment in light of outstanding 

applications for attorneys’ fees. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing the 

Appellants to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for their failure 

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

interlocutory order. 

(2) In their response to the notice to show cause, the Appellants contend 

that language in the February 1, 2023 order suggests it is a final order even though 

competing applications for attorneys’ fees remain outstanding. Plaintiff and 

Counterclaim Defendant-Below/Appellee Stone & Paper Investors, LLC and 

Counterclaim and Third-Party Defendants-Below/Appellees JAD Trading LLC, 
3

Diamond Carter Trading, LLC, John Diamond, Kanokpan Khumpoo, Albert Carter,

Elizabeth Carter, Eisdenber & Blau CPAS, P.C., Richard Eisenberg, and DD & 

Company, LLP argue that this appeal is interlocutory because fee applications are 

still pending in the Court of Chancery. 

(3) Absent compliance with 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 justiciable matters within its jurisdiction.2 This Court has repeatedly held that an 

order is not final and appealable if the trial has not ruled on an outstanding 

application for attorneys’ fees.3 The parties agree that attorneys’ fee applications 

remain pending in the Court of Chancery. This appeal must therefore be dismissed 

as interlocutory.

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

that this appeal is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice

1

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

2

J.I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973). 

3 See, e.g., ICATECH Corp. v. Facchina, 2021 WL 225825, at *1 (Del. Jan. 22, 2021) (dismissing 

appeal as interlocutory where applications for attorneys’ fees were pending in the trial court).