Title: Spring Real Estate, LLC v. Echo/RT Holdings, LLC, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 65, 2014
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 3, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SPRING REAL ESTATE, LLC, d/b/a 
SPRING CAPITAL GROUP. 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
ECHO/RT HOLDINGS, LLC and 
ECHO GLOBAL LOGISTICS, INC., 
et al., 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 65, 2014 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  C.A. No. 7994 
§ 
§ 
§  
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 31, 2014 
  Decided: April 3, 2014 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 3rd day of April 2014, upon consideration of the notice to show 
cause, the appellant’s response, and the appellees’ reply thereto, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Spring Real Estate, LLC (“Spring”), filed this 
appeal from orders of the Court of Chancery, dated December 31, 2013 and 
January 24, 2014, which dismissed Spring’s causes of action against the 
appellees (collectively, “Echo”).  The Court of Chancery’s orders did not 
address cross-claims filed by nominal defendant RayTrans Holdings, Inc.     
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
On March 11, 2014, the Clerk of this Court issued a rule to 
show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for Spring’s failure to 
comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when appealing an apparent 
interlocutory order.   Spring asserts that it filed its notice of appeal out of an 
abundance of caution in the event the Court of Chancery is divested of 
jurisdiction in the case under applicable bankruptcy law. 
(3) 
Echo filed a reply contending that the Court of Chancery’s 
order dismissing Spring’s claims is not a final order because the cross-claims 
remain pending below.  Echo contends that the appeal must be dismissed for 
Spring’s failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 in seeking to appeal 
an interlocutory order. 
(4) 
We agree.  An order is deemed final and appealable if the trial 
court has declared its intention that the order be the court=s Afinal act@ in 
disposing of all justiciable matters within its jurisdiction.1  The ruling from 
which the appeal is taken is interlocutory in nature because it did not finally 
determine and terminate the cause below.2  Furthermore, Spring has failed to 
                                                             
1 J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 
1973). 
2 See Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990 (Del. 1982). 
 
 
-3- 
comply with the requirements of Rule 42 in seeking to appeal from an 
interlocutory order. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is hereby 
DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice