Title: SARN SD3 LLC v. Czechoslovak Group A.S.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 184, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 3, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SARN SD3 LLC, 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CZECHOSLOVAK GROUP 
A.S., 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellee. 
 
 
§ 
§  No. 184, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N17C-12-185 
§   
§   
§                     
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 20, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 3, 2023 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On May 26, 2023, the appellant, SARN SD3 LLC (“SARN”), filed a 
notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s April 27, 2023 decision denying its 
motion to amend the Superior Court’s December 23, 2020 decision on SARN’s 
motion for partial summary judgment.  Because the court’s order did not appear to 
be a final order, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to SARN  to show cause why 
2 
 
this appeal should not be dismissed for its failure to comply with Supreme Court 
Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.  
(2) 
SARN has responded to the notice to show cause and notes that it filed 
this appeal before the Superior Court entered a final judgment as a precaution to 
preserve its right to appeal.  At the Court’s direction, the appellee, Czechoslovak 
Group A.S. (“CGA”), also responded to the notice to show cause.  CGA avers that 
the Superior Court’s order is interlocutory and observes that the parties have 
submitted competing forms of final judgment and order, which the Superior Court 
has taken under advisement.  CGA argues that this appeal must be dismissed as an 
impermissible interlocutory appeal.  We agree. 
(3) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, the appellate jurisdiction of 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  It is clear from 
the Superior Court docket—which reflects that the Superior Court has not yet acted 
on the parties’ competing forms of final judgment and order—that the Superior 
Court’s April 27, 2023 decision did not dispose of all justiciable matters in this case.  
 
1 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
2 J. I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. Williams Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973). 
3 
 
SARN was therefore required to comply with the provisions of Rule 42 or await the 
Superior Court’s entry of a final order. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal be DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice