Title: Hammann v. Carlo
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 410, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 11, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JERALD HAMMANN, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DENNIS J. CARLO, RICHARD C. 
WILLIAMS, HOWARD C. 
BIRNDORF, ROSHAWN A. BLUNT, 
and DAVID J. MARGUGLIO, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 410, 2023 
§   
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. 2021-0506 
§   
§   
§ 
§   
§   
§   
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 17, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 11, 2023 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the motion to determine whether the appellant’s notice 
of appeal is operative or precautionary and the appellees’ response, it appears to the 
Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Jerald Hammann, filed this appeal from multiple orders 
and opinions of the Court of Chancery, including a post-trial opinion.  The last order 
appealed was a November 3, 2023 order granting in part and denying in part 
Hammann’s motion for reargument.    
2 
 
(2) 
On November 14, 2023, Hammann filed a motion to determine whether 
his appeal was operative or precautionary.  Hammann admitted that several motions 
remained outstanding in the Court of Chancery, including his motions for sanctions 
and the appellees’ motion to enforce the court’s March 24, 2023 order.  In response 
to the motion, the appellees asserted that this appeal is premature and should be 
dismissed because motions remain outstanding in the Court of Chancery.   
(3) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, this Court is limited to the review of 
a trial court’s final judgment.1  An order is deemed final and appealable if the trial 
court has declared its intention that the order be the court’s final act in disposing of 
all justiciable matters within its jurisdiction.2  In its post-trial opinion, the Court of 
Chancery stated that the motions for sanctions and the motion to enforce the March 
24, 2023 order would “be addressed in a separate decision.”3  The parties agree that 
those motions remain pending in the Court of Chancery.  This appeal must therefore 
be dismissed as interlocutory. 
 
 
 
1 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
2 J.I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973).  
3 Hammann v. Adamis Pharms. Corp., 2023 WL 5424109, at *7 (Del. Ch. Aug. 23, 2023). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that this appeal is DISMISSED.  The 
filing fee paid by Hammann shall apply to any future appeal that he files from a final 
order entered in this case. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
Justice