Title: Merritt v. R&R Capital, LLC, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 473, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 22, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LINDA MERRITT (aka LYN 
MERRITT),   
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
R&R CAPITAL, LLC, a New York 
Limited Liability Company, and FTP 
CAPITAL, LLC, a New York 
Limited Liability Company, 
 
Plaintiffs Below- 
Appellees 
 
and  
 
BUCK & DOE RUN VALLEY 
FARMS, LLC et al.,  
 
           Nominal Defendants- 
           Appellees.  
§ 
§  No. 473, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below-Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  C.A. No. 3989 
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 13, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 22, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 22nd day of September 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On July 28, 2010, this Court received the appellant’s notice of appeal 
from the Court of Chancery’s June 28, 2010 order holding the appellant in 
contempt.  On August 2, 2010, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme 
 
2 
Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why her appeal should not 
be dismissed for her failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an 
appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.   
 
(2) 
The appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause on 
September 2, 2010.  In her response, the appellant states that the Court of 
Chancery’s June 28, 2010 order is a final order and, therefore, appealable.  On 
September 13, 2010, the independent receiver submitted a reply to the appellant’s 
response.  In his reply, the independent receiver states that the appeal is 
interlocutory because there are ongoing proceedings in the Court of Chancery case.  
Specifically, there are matters currently pending involving the process of winding 
up the affairs of the nominal defendants, after which the independent receiver may 
apply to the Court of Chancery for an order of dismissal.   
 
(3) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, the jurisdiction of this Court is 
limited to the review of final orders of trial courts.1  An order is deemed to be final 
if the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order be the court’s “final 
act” in the case.2   
 
(4) 
There are matters still pending before the Court of Chancery in this 
case, as reflected in the court docket below.  As such, the Court of Chancery’s June 
28, 2010 order is interlocutory and any appeal from that order is premature absent 
                                                 
1 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
2 J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973). 
 
3 
compliance with the requirements for taking an interlocutory appeal in accordance 
with Rule 42.  Because the appellant has not attempted to comply with the 
requirements of Rule 42, we conclude that the appeal must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within appeal is 
DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice