Title: Campbell v. Eagle Force Holdings, LLC, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 258, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 9, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STANLEY V. CAMPBELL, 
 
Defendant Below– 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
EAGLE FORCE HOLDINGS, LLC,  
and EF INVESTMENTS, LLC, 
 
Plaintiffs Below– 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 258, 2019 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. 10803 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 28, 2019 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: July 9, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Upon consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the amended notice 
of appeal, and the documents attached thereto,1 it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
This appeal arises from a Court of Chancery order granting a motion 
for contempt filed by Eagle Force Holdings, LLC, and EF Investments, LLC 
(collectively, “Eagle Force”).  The following events led to this ruling.  On July 23, 
2015, at Eagle Force’s request, the Court of Chancery entered a status quo order 
                                                 
1 The appellant did not attach to his notice of appeal or amended notice of appeal either his 
application for certification filed in the Court of Chancery or the appellees’ response thereto.  Supr. 
Ct. R. 42(d)(iv)(A), (C).  The Court appreciates that the appellees supplemented the record by 
filing their response to appellant’s application for certification filed in the Court of Chancery on 
June 12, 2019. 
 
2 
(“the Status Quo Order”) pending litigation.  Among other things, the Status Quo 
Order required the defendant, Stanley V. Campbell, to give Eagle Force ten days’ 
advance notice of any transaction subject to the Status Quo Order.  While 
proceedings were pending before the Court of Chancery, Eagle Force filed a motion 
to hold Campbell in contempt for an alleged violation of the Status Quo Order.  
Following an evidentiary hearing, the court found Campbell in contempt for failing 
to give Eagle Force the required advance notice before engaging in a transaction 
subject to the Status Quo Order.  Eagle Force later filed two additional motions to 
find Campbell in contempt.  The Court of Chancery held an evidentiary hearing on 
each of the subsequent motions but delayed its rulings until it decided an issue 
central to the pending litigation—whether the Court of Chancery had personal 
jurisdiction over Campbell.  On September 1, 2017, the court issued its post-trial 
opinion.  The Court of Chancery found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over 
Campbell and concluded, among other things, that the court’s prior contempt orders 
were unenforceable.  On direct appeal, this Court reversed that finding, holding, 
“[W]hen a Delaware court issues a status quo order pending its adjudication of 
questions concerning its own jurisdiction, it may punish violations of those orders 
with contempt and for sanctions, no matter whether it ultimately finds that it lacked 
jurisdiction.”2   
                                                 
2 Eagle Force Holdings, LLC v. Campbell, 187 A.3d 1209, 1241–42 (Del. 2018). 
 
3 
(2) 
On remand, Eagle Force again filed a motion for contempt against 
Campbell alleging he violated the Status Quo Order while the matter was on appeal.  
On April 23, 2019, the Court of Chancery held that Campbell was bound by the 
Status Quo Order during the appeal period.  On May 10, 2019, the court granted the 
parties’ stipulated proposed order wherein the parties agreed (i) they did not require 
an evidentiary hearing on the motion for contempt and (ii) Campbell would disgorge 
to EagleForce Associates, Inc., the sum of $1,097,558.47.  On May 17, 2019, the 
court ordered Campbell to surrender the agreed-upon amount to EagleForce 
Associates, Inc., within twenty days.   
(3) 
On May 31, 2019, Campbell filed in the Court of Chancery a motion 
for certification of an interlocutory appeal and a motion to stay the Court of 
Chancery’s April 23, 2019 and May 17, 2019 orders.  Campbell argued that 
certification was appropriate because the interlocutory appeal involved a question of 
law decided for the first time in Delaware—whether a reversal on appeal reinstates 
interlocutory orders retrospectively so as to subject someone to a potential contempt 
citation for actions otherwise lawfully taken after the dismissal of an action.  
Campbell also argued that the ruling was contrary to the weight of authority from 
other jurisdictions and that allowing the decision to sit as precedent would have a 
chilling effect on the rights of successful litigants pending the appeal process.  Eagle 
Force opposed Campbell’s request for certification of an interlocutory appeal. 
 
4 
(4) 
On June 20, 2019, the Court of Chancery denied Campbell’s 
application for certification and request for a stay.  The Court of Chancery found 
that its ruling did not decide a substantial issue of material importance and given the 
procedural posture of the case—the case is on remand, briefing is complete, and the 
court expects to issue a final decision within a matter of weeks—justice would not 
be served by permitting piecemeal litigation.  Alternatively, the court concluded that 
Campbell’s application for certification was inappropriate because it was untimely 
filed.3  Campbell technically seeks a review of the court’s April 23, 2019 order 
finding him in contempt.  However, even if Campbell sought to appeal the court’s 
May 17, 2019 order—establishing a deadline for the disgorgement of funds—the 
motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal was untimely filed on May 31, 
2019.   
(5)  
On appeal, Campbell contends this Court should accept his appeal of 
the Court of Chancery April 23, 2019 and May 17, 2019 orders as immediately 
appealable under the collateral order doctrine or, in the alternative, as an 
interlocutory appeal. 
(6) 
The collateral order doctrine has been characterized as “a common law 
recognition that certain collateral orders constitute final judgments.”4  It is applied 
                                                 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 42(c)(i) (“Such application [for certification of an interlocutory appeal] shall be 
served and filed within 10 days of the entry of the order from which the appeal is sought . . . .”). 
4 Evans v. Justice of the Peace Court No. 19, 652 A.2d 574, 576 (Del. 1995). 
 
5 
to “that small class [of decisions] which finally determine claims of right separable 
from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied 
review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration 
be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.”5  The collateral order doctrine is not 
implicated in this case. 
(7) 
We also decline to accept Campbell’s application for interlocutory 
review.  Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion 
of the Court.6  In the exercise of its discretion and giving great weight to the trial 
court’s review, this Court has concluded that the application for interlocutory review 
does not meet the strict standards for certification under Supreme Court Rule 42(b).  
In the first instance, the application was untimely filed.  Moreover, exceptional 
circumstances that would merit interlocutory review of the Court of Chancery’s 
decision do not exist in this case,7 and the potential benefits of interlocutory review 
do not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by an 
interlocutory appeal.8 
 
 
                                                 
5 Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546–47 (1949). 
6 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
7 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 
8 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii). 
 
6 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice