Title: Silicato-Wood Partnership v. Two Farms
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 408, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 27, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SILICATO-WOOD PARTNERSHIP, 
LLC, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
TWO FARMS, INC., 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 408, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  C.A. No. K17C-09-010 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 29, 2018 
  Decided: September 27, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
Upon consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the supplemental 
notice of appeal, and the documents attached thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendant below, Silicato-Wood Partnership, LLC (“SWP”), has 
petitioned this Court under Supreme Court Rule 42 to accept an interlocutory appeal 
from an opinion of the Superior Court dated June 4, 2018 (“the Opinion”) and an 
order dated July 11, 2018, denying SWP’s motion for partial reargument.  In relevant 
part, the Opinion granted the plaintiff Two Farms, Inc.’s motion to dismiss SWP’s 
counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that SWP was entitled to judgment in 
its favor on Two Farms’ fraud claim.   
 
 
2 
(2) 
On August 6, 2018, SWP filed an application for certification in the 
Superior Court to take an interlocutory appeal of that aspect of the Opinion 
dismissing SWP’s counterclaim for declaratory judgment.  SWP argued that the 
Superior Court’s ruling, which concluded that the integration clause and due 
diligence provision in the parties’ contract did not bar Two Farm’s fraud claim, 
decided a substantial issue of material importance.  SWP also argued that the 
interlocutory ruling decided an issue of first impression, that the trial courts in the 
State have issued conflicting decisions on the issue, and that interlocutory review 
could terminate the litigation and would otherwise serve considerations of justice.  
Two Farms filed a response in opposition on August 16, 2018.   
(3) 
The Superior Court denied the certification application on August 22, 
2018.  In denying certification, the Superior Court concluded that the Opinion did 
not decide a substantial issue of material importance or otherwise satisfy any of the 
criteria for certifying interlocutory appeals under Rule 42.  
(4) 
We agree that interlocutory review is not warranted in this case.  
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this 
Court.  In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that the application 
for interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under 
Supreme Court Rule 42(b).  The case is not exceptional,1 and the potential benefits 
                                                 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 
 
 
3 
of interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable 
costs caused by an interlocutory appeal.2  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is 
REFUSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
Justice 
                                                 
2 Id. 42(b)(iii).