Title: Emeritus Corporation v. McDonald
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 524, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 30, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
EMERITUS CORPORATION,  
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 524, 2011 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
  
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
DANIEL J. McDONALD, 
 
§ 
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF § 
JAMES McDONALD, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 28, 2011 
Decided: 
September 30, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 30th day of September 2011, upon consideration of the notice and 
supplemental notice of interlocutory appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On February 24, 2010, plaintiff below/appellee, Daniel J. 
McDonald, Executor of the Estate of James McDonald (“McDonald”), filed 
a personal injury complaint against defendant below/appellant, Emeritus 
Corporation (“Emeritus”).   On August 15, 2011, Emeritus filed a motion to 
dismiss. 
(2) 
At a hearing on August 29, 2011, the Superior Court denied 
Emeritus’ motion to dismiss “with the understanding that [McDonald] will 
2 
 
file an Amended Complaint and [Emeritus] will have ten business days to 
respond.”1  Thereafter, McDonald filed a motion to amend the complaint and 
Emeritus filed a response in opposition to the motion to amend. 
(3) 
On September 20, 2011, Emeritus filed an application asking 
the Superior Court to certify its August 29, 2011 denial of the motion to 
dismiss.  It appears that, at a hearing on September 23, 2011, the Superior 
Court granted McDonald’s motion to amend the complaint and denied 
Emeritus’ application for certification of the August 29, 2011 denial of the 
motion to dismiss.  The Superior Court also indicated that a written decision 
would follow. 
(4) 
On September 27, 2011, Emeritus petitioned this Court 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an interlocutory appeal from 
the Superior Court’s August 29, 2011 denial of the motion to dismiss.  
Thereafter, Emeritus filed a supplemental notice of interlocutory appeal 
submitting the Superior Court’s written decision of September 27, 2011 that 
formally denied Emeritus’ motion to dismiss and application for certification 
                                          
 
1 See docket at 27, McDonald v. Emeritus Corp., Del. Super., C.A. No. N10C-023-199 
(Aug. 29, 2011) (filing of judicial action form). 
3 
 
of an interlocutory appeal and granted McDonald’s motion to amend the 
complaint.2  
 
(5) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional 
circumstances.  Having examined the Superior Court’s August 29, 2011 
bench ruling and September 27, 2011 decision according to the criteria set 
forth in Supreme Court Rule 42, we have concluded that exceptional 
circumstances meriting interlocutory review do not exist in this case. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.     
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
2 See id. at 39, (Sep. 27, 2011) (filing of decision on the motion to amend complaint, 
motion to dismiss and application for certification of an interlocutory appeal).