Title: Adams v. Aidoo
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 341, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 29, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ASHLEY ADAMS, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 341, 2009 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
YAW AIDOO and NINETTE  
§ 
AIDOO, 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. 07C-11-177 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 23, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 29, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 29th day of June 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
Plaintiff-appellant has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 42 (“Rule 42”), to appeal from the Superior Court’s interlocutory bench 
ruling of May 15, 20091 that granted  defendants-appellees’ motion to dismiss.2  
By opinion and order dated May 18, 2009, the Superior Court granted plaintiff-
appellant’s application for certification of an interlocutory appeal. 
                                          
 
1 Plaintiff-appellant purports to seek review of an interlocutory order entered on June 9, 2009; 
however, the Superior Court docket does not reflect that any order, interlocutory or otherwise, 
was entered on that date. 
2 The dismissal of plaintiff-appellant’s complaint is an interlocutory ruling because it was not 
certified as a final judgment pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b) and defendants-
appellees’ counterclaims remain undecided.  Harrison v. Ramunno, 730 A.2d 653 (Del. 1999). 
 
2
 
(2) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances.3  In the 
exercise of its discretion, the Court has concluded that exceptional circumstances 
as would merit interlocutory review of the Superior Court’s May 15, 2009 bench 
ruling do not exist in this case. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b), (d)(v).