Title: Shahin v. City of Dover, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 51, 2019
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 28, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MAZEN SHAHIN and NINA 
SHAHIN, 
 
 
Plaintiffs Below, 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
CITY OF DOVER and CHERYL A. 
BUNDEK, CITY OF DOVER TAX 
ASSESSOR, 
 
Defendants Below, Appellees. 
 
§ 
§  No. 51, 2019 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  C.A. No. K18C-10-023 WLW 
§    
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  February 25, 2019  
 
 
 
 
    Decided:  February 28, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and SEITZ Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
On February 8, 2019, the appellants, Mazen and Nina Shahin, filed a 
notice of appeal from a January 9, 2019 decision of the Superior Court denying the 
Shahins’ motion for reargument of their application for appointment of counsel.  The 
Superior Court had denied their application for appointment of counsel on December 
17, 2018.  In the action pending in the Superior Court, the Shahins allege that the 
City of Dover and the city’s tax assessor discriminated against them on the basis of 
their national origin when assessing their property for tax purposes. 
2 
 
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing the Shahins to show 
cause why their appeal should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Supreme 
Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an interlocutory order.  The Shahins 
timely filed a response to the notice.1  In response to the notice, the Shahins explain 
why they desire, and believe they are entitled to, appointment of counsel.  But they 
do not address their failure to comply with the requirements for taking an 
interlocutory appeal as set forth in Rule 42. 
(3) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited 
to the review of the final judgment of a trial court.2  An order is deemed final if the 
trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order is the court’s “final act” in 
the case.3  The Superior Court still has pending before it the substantive claims 
asserted in the Shahins’ amended complaint.  The proceedings before the Superior 
Court are ongoing, and a final judgment has not yet been rendered.  “[A] ruling on a 
request for counsel is interlocutory and not separately appealable to this Court absent 
compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42.”4  Accordingly, an appeal from the 
                                                 
1 The Court notes that the Shahins’ response complains that decisions and other communications 
from various Delaware courts are not timely mailed, and they note that the notice to show cause 
included an error in the caption.  The Shahins’ response was timely filed in this appeal; it is 
therefore unnecessary to address these arguments further in this Order. 
2 Arnold v. Arnold, 2002 WL 1874914 (Del. Aug. 12, 2002). 
3 Id. 
4 Shoemaker v. Superior Court, 2004 WL 300964 (Del. Feb. 13, 2004). 
3 
 
Superior Court to this Court is premature absent compliance with the requirements 
for taking an interlocutory appeal in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 42.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is hereby 
DISMISSED.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice