Title: Collins v. African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 219, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 11, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KATINA COLLINS, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
THE 
AFRICAN 
METHODIST 
EPISCOPAL ZION CHURCH, a 
North Carolina corporation, BISHOP 
MILTON A. WILLIAMS, SR., and 
SCOTT A.M.E. ZION CHURCH, a 
Delaware corporation, 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 219, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 04C-02-121 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 20, 2006 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: August 11, 2006 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 11th day of August 2006, upon consideration of the appellees’ motion to 
dismiss and the appellant’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Katina Collins, filed a complaint in the 
Superior Court in February 2004 against the defendants-appellees, the African 
Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, Bishop Milton Williams, and Scott A.M.E. Zion 
Church (collectively, “the Church defendants”), as well as the Reverend Dr. 
William Burton (“Burton”). The claims arose from the alleged harassment of 
Collins by Burton, her pastor, and Collins’ attempts to have Burton disciplined by 
 
2
the Church defendants.  On April 4, 2006, the Superior Court docketed an opinion 
granting summary judgment to the Church defendants on Collins’ claims of 
negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of 
emotional distress.  The trial court held that Collins was “seeking civil court 
review of ecclesiastical policies” and that the court lacked subject matter 
jurisdiction to adjudicate that issue.  In a separate opinion, the Superior Court 
denied Burton’s motion for summary judgment on Collins’ claim of intentional 
infliction of emotional distress. 
 
(2) 
Collins filed her notice of appeal against the Church defendants on 
May 3, 2006.  The Church defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Collins 
appeal on the grounds that the Superior Court’s opinion granting summary 
judgment to the Church defendants is an interlocutory order, and Collins has not 
complied with the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 42 in seeking to file an 
interlocutory appeal. 
 
(3) 
In her response, Collins acknowledges that her complaint against 
Burton is still pending in the Superior Court.  She contends, however that the 
present appeal is not interlocutory because the Superior Court’s entry of summary 
judgment in favor of the Church defendants is a collateral order subject to 
immediate appellate review.  More specifically, Collins claims that the Superior 
Court’s grant of summary judgment to the Church defendants for lack of subject 
matter jurisdiction under the First Amendment of the Constitution is collateral to 
 
3
the issues of negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional 
infliction of emotional distress, which were raised in Collins’ complaint. 
 
(4) 
We disagree.  The collateral order doctrine only applies to “that small 
class [of decisions] which finally determine claims of right separable from, and 
collateral to, rights asserted in the action….”1 The Superior Court’s grant of 
summary judgment to less than all of the defendants named in Collins’ complaint 
does not fall into “that small class” of collateral orders.  Collins could have sought 
the entry of a final judgment with respect to the Church defendants pursuant to 
Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b),2 but she failed to do so.  Nor did she attempt to 
comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 in seeking to appeal the Superior 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 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1 Evans v. J.P. Court No. 19, 652 A.2d 574, 576 (Del. 1995) (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial 
Indus. Loan, 337 U.S. 541 (1949)). 
2 Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b) provides, in part, that the Superior “Court may direct 
the entry of a final judgment upon one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only 
upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay…”