Title: Blanch v. Stone & Paper Investors, LLC
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 78, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 6, 2023

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).