Title: Alston, et al. v. Williams,et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 582, 2008
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 28, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JERRY L. ALSTON and TRIPLE 
§ 
7 PARA-LEGAL SERVICES,  
§ 
No. 582, 2008 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiffs Below,  
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
Appellants,  
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Kent County 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
WHITE AND WILLIAMS, LLP and § 
MARC S. CASARINO,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. 08C-05-023 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 26, 2009 
 
 
 
Decided: 
April 28, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 28th day of April 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On November 25, 2008, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order of November 19, 2008 that granted summary 
judgment on behalf of appellees.  The order also granted appellees leave to file a 
motion for sanctions against appellant.  As of November 25, 2008, appellees had 
not filed a motion for sanctions in the Superior Court.1 
                                          
 
1 It appears from the Superior Court docket that appellees filed a motion for sanctions on April 7, 
2009, and that a hearing is scheduled on the motion on May 1, 2009. 
 
2
 
(2) 
By notice issued on January 13, 2009, the Clerk directed that 
appellant show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to comply 
with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory 
order.  In his response to the notice to show cause, appellant asserts that the 
Superior Court’s November 19, 2008 order “effectively ended the cause of action.” 
 
(3) 
The November 19, 2008 order from which the appeal is taken is 
interlocutory in nature because it did not finally determine and terminate the cause 
before the Superior Court.2  Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, this 
Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the order.3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.  Appellant’s filing fee in this appeal shall be 
applied to any future appeal filed by appellant in this matter following the issuance 
of a final order by the Superior Court. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
                                          
 
2 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990 (Del. 1982). 
3 Id.