Title: Abrams v. Lamotte
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 325, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 15, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
REYNOLDS C. ABRAMS,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
BUNNY V. LAMOTTE,  
 
           Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 325, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. N10C-09-087 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                      Submitted: July 3, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 15, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 15th day of July 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On June 26, 2013, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the May 1, 2013 Superior Court jury verdict.  Pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from a May 1, 2013 order 
of the Superior Court should have been filed on or before May 31, 2013. 
 
(2) 
On June 26, 2013, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the 
appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed a 
response to the notice to show cause on July 3, 2013.  In the response, the 
 
2
appellant states that he does not believe his counsel represented him properly 
at trial. 
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (1), a notice of appeal in a civil case must 
be filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Court within 30 days after entry 
upon the docket of the judgment, order or decree from which the appeal is 
taken.  Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Office of the Clerk within the applicable time period in order 
to be effective.2  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to 
comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 6.3  Unless the 
appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is 
attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal may not be considered.4 
 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record reflecting that the appellant’s 
failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel.  Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception to the 
general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  Thus, the 
Court concludes that this appeal must be dismissed. 
 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
5 Moreover, as is reflected on the Superior Court docket, a final order has not yet issued 
in this case.  As such, this appeal also must be dismissed for the appellant’s failure to 
comply with the requirements of Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent 
interlocutory order, as previously ordered by this Court.  Abrams v. Lamotte, Del. Supr., 
No. 287, 2013, Holland, J. (June 17, 2013).