Title: Nichols v. Lewis, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 128, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 1, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STEPHEN J. NICHOLS, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
JOANNE B. LEWIS, ANNE M. 
BARCZEWSKI, STEPHEN J. 
BARCZEWSKI, and GEORGE A. 
BARCZEWSKI, SUSAN ARDAY, 
and DAVID R. ARDAY, 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 128, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 1758-N 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 4, 2007 
  Decided: May 1, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS,  Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 1st day of May 2007, upon consideration of the appellees’ motion to 
dismiss and the appellant's response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Stephen J. Nichols, filed this appeal from a 
decision of the Court of Chancery dismissing all counts of Nichols’s complaint 
against the defendants-appellees.  The trial court, however, expressly allowed 
Nichols the opportunity to re-plead and bring a claim of defamation against 
defendants-appellees, the Ardays.   
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
The defendants-appellees have filed a motion to dismiss Nichols’ 
appeal on the grounds that the Court of Chancery’s order is interlocutory and 
that Nichols has not complied with Supreme Court Rule 42, which governs 
appeals from interlocutory orders.  The appellees contend that the dismissal of 
less than all of the claims against all the defendants-appellees in the case 
renders the present appeal interlocutory.   
(3) 
In his response to the motion to dismiss, Nichols contends that the 
Court of Chancery’s order was final because it disposed of all the claims in his 
Second Amended Verified Complaint.  Nichols apparently argues that the filing 
of another amended complaint in the same case did not affect the finality of the 
Court of Chancery’s ruling dismissing the Second Amended Verified 
Complaint. 
(4) 
We disagree.  An order is deemed final and appealable if the trial 
court has clearly declared its intention that the order be the court's “final act” in 
disposing of all justiciable matters within its jurisdiction.1  Permitting Nichols 
to file another amended complaint in the same case against the Ardays clearly 
reflects the trial court’s intention that the dismissal of the Second Amended 
                                                            
1 J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 
(Del. 1973).   
 
 
-3- 
Verified Complaint was not the court’s final act in the case.2  Nichols did not 
seek the entry of a final judgment under Court of Chancery Rule 54(b), nor did 
he attempt to comply with the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 42 in 
attempting to appeal from the trial court’s interlocutory ruling. Accordingly, 
this appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appellees’ motion to 
dismiss is GRANTED.  This appeal is hereby DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger  
Justice 
 
 
                                                            
2  Braddock v. Zimmerman, 906 A.2d 776, 783-84 (Del. 2006).