Title: Perryman v. Stimwave Technologies Incorporated
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 256, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 29, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LAURA PERRYMAN, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STIMWAVE TECHNOLOGIES, 
INCORPORATED, 
 
Plaintiff Below,  
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§ No. 256, 2022 
§ 
§ Court Below: Court of Chancery 
§ of the State of Delaware 
§     
§ C.A. No. 2019-1003 
§  
§                        
§                         
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  August 9, 2022 
 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  August 29, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On July 26, 2022, the pro se appellant, Laura Perryman, filed a notice 
of appeal from a letter order dated July 14, 2022, in which the Court of Chancery 
denied Perryman’s motion to lift a status quo order that had previously been entered 
in the case.  The notice of appeal also identifies rulings made by the Court of 
Chancery during a telephonic hearing on May 4, 2022, when the court denied an 
earlier motion to lift and vacate the status quo order, and a hearing held in November 
2020.  The July 14, 2022 order denying the motion to lift the status quo order states 
2 
 
that on July 7, 2022, the court lifted a stay in the action and that “the matter shall 
proceed to trial.” 
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Perryman to show 
cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with Supreme 
Court Rule 42 in taking an appeal from an interlocutory order.  In response, 
Perryman contends that she complied with Rule 42 because she filed an application 
for certification of an interlocutory appeal of the Court of Chancery’s May 4, 2022 
ruling, and the Court of Chancery denied that application on June 9, 2022.  Perryman 
asserts that she did not pursue an interlocutory appeal of the May 4, 2022 ruling 
because “the case was on stay,” instead moving to lift the stay and then filing a 
second motion to lift the status quo order. 
(3) 
Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate 
jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final orders.1  Moreover, a notice 
of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.2  Although 
Perryman filed an application for certification of an interlocutory appeal from the 
Court of Chancery’s May 4, 2022 ruling, she decided not to file an interlocutory 
appeal at that time.  And she did not file an application for certification of an 
interlocutory appeal from the July 14, 2022 order, or otherwise comply with the 
 
1 Hines v. Williams, 2018 WL 2435551 (Del. May 29, 2018). 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 
 
procedural requirements of Rule 42 as to that order.  Perryman’s failure to comply 
with Rule 42 leaves this Court without jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal 
from the July 14, 2022 order, and her failure to file a timely notice of interlocutory 
appeal from the May 4, 2022 or November 2020 rulings leaves the court without 
jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from those rulings.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is hereby 
DISMISSED.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Chief Justice