Title: P&TI Acquisition Company, Inc. v. Morgenthaler Partners VII, LP
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 245, 2019
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 30, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
P&TI ACQUISITION COMPANY, 
INC., 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
MORGENTHALER PARTNERS VII, 
LP and MORGENTHALER 
MANAGEMENT PARTNERS VII, 
LLC, as Sellers’ Representative, 
 
Defendants Below, Appellees. 
 
§ 
§  No. 245, 2019 
§ 
§  Court Below: Superior Court  
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  
§   
§   
§                         
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  June 26, 2019 
 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  July 30, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause, the appellant’s response, and 
the appellees’ reply, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, P&TI Acquisition Company, Inc., filed this 
appeal from a decision of the Superior Court, dated May 9, 2019, which granted the 
defendants-appellees’ motion to dismiss.  The Superior Court’s order had the effect 
of resolving all claims asserted in Superior Court C.A. No. N18C-08-59 AML 
CCLD (the “P&TI Matter”).   
2 
 
(2) 
On November 20, 2018, at the joint request of the parties, the Superior 
Court had entered an order that, among other things, consolidated the P&TI Matter 
with another case (the “MMP Matter”), filed by Morgenthaler Management Partners 
VII, LLC, which is one of the defendants-appellees in the P&TI Matter.  The 
complaint in the MMP Matter asserted claims relating to the same stock purchase 
agreement that is at issue in the P&TI Matter.  Proceedings in the MMP Matter are 
ongoing.  In light of the consolidation order and the ongoing proceedings in the 
MMP Matter, on June 13, 2019, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice to the 
appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for the appellant’s 
failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when appealing an apparent 
interlocutory order.   
(3) 
The appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause, arguing that 
the Superior Court’s decision is a final, appealable order because it finally resolved 
all of the claims associated with the P&TI Matter.  In their reply, the appellees 
contend that the appellant’s response ignores the Superior Court’s consolidation of 
the two cases.  They argue that, because proceedings in the MMP Matter are 
ongoing, with trial currently scheduled for next year, this appeal is interlocutory. 
(4) 
We agree with the appellees’ position.  An order is deemed final and 
appealable if the trial court has declared its intention that the order be the court’s 
3 
 
final act in disposing of all justiciable matters within its jurisdiction.1  Although the 
Superior Court e-filing system does not indicate that the cases are consolidated, such 
as by assigning a consolidated case name and number, it appears that it was the 
parties’ and the Superior Court’s intent that the cases would be consolidated.2  
Having consolidated the cases, the Superior Court’s order dismissing the claims in 
the P&TI Matter did not dispose of all of the issues pending before the court.3  
Therefore, the ruling from which the appeal is taken is interlocutory.4  Finally, the 
appellant admits that the Superior Court’s order dismissing the claims in the P&TI 
Matter does not satisfy the criteria for bringing an interlocutory appeal, and P&TI is 
not seeking appellate review at this time, if the order is deemed to be interlocutory. 
(5) 
This appeal must be dismissed because it was taken from an 
interlocutory order.  Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, this Court has 
no jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal.5 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is hereby 
DISMISSED without prejudice.  Any docketing fee paid to this Court by the 
                                                 
1 Dickerson v. Phillips, 2012 WL 3007947, at *1 (Del. July 24, 2012) (citing J.I. Kislak Mortgage 
Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973)). 
2 See P&TI Acquisition Co. v. Morgenthaler Partners VII, LP, C.A. No. N18C-08-059 AML 
CCLD, Docket Entry No. 16 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 19, 2018) (“After consideration of the joint 
proposal of the parties, as well as the interests of justice, the Court hereby consolidates the above-
referenced matters for purposes of discovery and trial, and enters this Case Management Order, 
which will apply to this single, consolidated matter.” (emphasis added)). 
3 Dickerson, 2012 WL 3007947, at *1. 
4 Id. (citing Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990 (Del. 1982)). 
5 Julian, 440 A.2d at 991. 
4 
 
appellant in conjunction with this appeal may be applied to a future appeal from a 
final order entered in the consolidated matter. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice