Title: Delta Eta Corporation v. University of Delaware
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 605, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 17, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DELTA ETA CORPORATION,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 605, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 07C-04-580 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 16, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    November 17, 2009 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 17th day of November, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Delta Eta Corporation, has moved to 
dismiss its own appeal as well as the cross-appeal of the defendant-appellee, 
the University of Delaware, on the ground that both the appeal and cross-
appeal are interlocutory under Supreme Court Rule 42.  The University 
argues that both the appeal and the cross-appeal are properly filed and 
should not be dismissed.  We conclude that the appeal and cross-appeal are 
 
2 
interlocutory and, therefore, must be dismissed, albeit on grounds different 
from those advanced by Delta Eta.1   
 
(2) 
The Superior Court docket reflects the following: On April 24, 
2007, Delta Eta filed a breach of contract action against the University.  
Following discovery, Delta Eta moved for summary judgment, which the 
Superior Court granted on October 31, 2008.  On September 11, 2009, the 
Superior Court issued a separate decision regarding the amount of pre-
judgment interest owed by the University.  On September 21, 2009, Delta 
Eta filed a motion for clarification regarding the date when pre-judgment 
interest begins to run and, on September 29, 2009, the University filed an 
answer to Delta Eta’s motion.  The Superior Court did not rule on Delta 
Eta’s motion before the filing of the parties’ appeals to this Court on October 
15, 2009.  The motion and the response remain pending.   
 
(3) 
 Because Delta Eta’s motion for clarification and the 
University’s response thereto remain pending before the Superior Court, the 
parties’ appeals are interlocutory.2  Therefore, because the requirements of 
Rule 42 have not been met, this appeal must be dismissed.3  In the event that 
Delta Eta or the University files a notice of appeal from a final judgment of 
                                                 
1 Delta Eta argues that the Superior Court’s orders are not “final” until the ministerial act 
of entering the amount of the judgment on the Superior Court judgment docket has been 
completed. 
2 Stroud v. Milliken Enterprises, Inc., 552 A.2d 476, 480, 482 (Del. 1989). 
3 Id. at 482. 
 
3 
the Superior Court in this matter, the filing fees in any such appeal are 
waived. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within appeal and 
cross-appeal are DISMISSED pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 29(b) and 
42.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
              
 
        Justice