Title: Roos Foods v. Magdalena Guardado
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 87, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 28, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROOS FOODS, 
 
Appellant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
MAGDALENA GUARDADO 
 
Appellee Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§   
§  No. 87, 2016 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  C.A. No. S15A-05-002 
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 22, 2016 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
March 28, 2016 
 
 
 
 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 28th day of March 2016, upon consideration of the notice to show 
cause, the appellant’s response, and the appellee’s reply, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
On February 24, 2016, the appellant below-appellant, Roos Foods, 
filed a notice of appeal from a January 26, 2016 Superior Court letter opinion 
(“Opinion”) affirming the Industrial Accident Board’s (“IAB”) denial of Roos 
Foods’ petition for termination of benefits for the appellee below-appellee 
Magdalena Guardado.  At the time of the appeal, there was a fee application  
pending in the Superior Court.  Guardado had filed the fee application pursuant to 
19 Del. C. § 2350(f), which provides that the Superior Court may award reasonable 
2 
 
attorneys’ fees to a claimant’s attorney for services on appeal from the IAB to the 
Superior Court and from the Superior Court to the Supreme Court when the 
claimant’s position before the IAB is affirmed on appeal.    
(2) 
On March 2, 2016, Roos Foods was directed to show cause why this 
appeal should not be dismissed for its failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 
42 in filing an appeal from an interlocutory order.  In its response to the notice to 
show cause, Roos Foods stated that it had filed the appeal before resolution of the 
fee application because it was concerned this Court would view the fee application 
“as clerical and/or distinct from the issue on appeal and not something that would 
delay the finality of the Superior Court’s [January 26, 2016] decision.”1  Roos 
Foods also noted that the parties had resolved the fee application by stipulation 
after the notice of appeal was filed.  The Superior Court granted the parties’ 
stipulation and proposed order as to attorneys’ fees on March 4, 2016.  
(3) 
Guardado was asked to respond to Roos Foods’ submission.  In her 
response, Guardado argued that Roos Foods’ notice of appeal was premature 
because there was a fee application pending in the Superior Court at the time of the 
appeal.   Guardado further contended that the time to file a notice of appeal ran 
from the March 4, 2016 order of the Superior Court granting of the stipulation and 
                                                 
1 Response to Notice to Show Cause ¶ 8. 
3 
 
order on the fee application because that order constituted the final act of the 
Superior Court.  We agree.   
(4) 
Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42 (“Rule 42”), this 
Court is limited to the review of a trial court’s final judgment.2  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.3  We have held that an order is not final and appealable until the trial 
court has ruled on an outstanding application for attorney's fees.4   
(5) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ positions, we conclude that 
this appeal must be dismissed as interlocutory.  A fee application was outstanding 
at the time Roos Foods filed the notice of appeal.  Roos Foods was therefore 
required to comply with the provisions of Rule 42.  Roos Foods has not complied 
with the provisions of Rule 42.  Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
Justice 
 
                                                 
2 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
3J.I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973).  
4 See, e.g., In re Rural Metro Corp. S’holders Litig., 2014 WL 7010818, at *1 (Del. Dec. 2, 
2014); Dimensional Stone Prods., LLC v. Pouser, 2009 WL 1660530, at *1 (Del. June 15, 2009); 
Delaware Bar Surgical Servs., P.A. v. Swier, 2005 WL 541016, at *1 (Del. Feb. 5, 2005).