Title: CCSB Financial Corp. v. Deann M. Totta
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 289, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 12, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CCSB FINANCIAL CORP., 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DEANN M. TOTTA, LAURIE 
MORRISSEY, CHASE WATSON, 
and PARK G.P., INC., 
 
Plaintiffs Below,  
Appellees. 
 
§ 
§ No. 289, 2022 
§ 
§ Court Below: Court of Chancery 
§ of the State of Delaware 
§     
§ C.A. No. 2021-0173 
§  
§                        
§                         
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  August 26, 2022  
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  September 12, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In this action concerning a contested election of directors of defendant-
appellant CCSB Financial Corp., the Court of Chancery held in a post-trial 
memorandum opinion that the nominees of plaintiff-appellee Park G.P., Inc. won 
the election and were directors.  On July 18, 2022, the Court of Chancery entered an 
“Order and Judgment with Respect to the 2021 Annual CCSB Financial Corp. 
Stockholders Meeting” (the “Order and Judgment”) implementing that decision.  
The Order and Judgment provided that the Court of Chancery “reserves jurisdiction 
2 
 
in this action to consider an application for attorneys’ fees and expenses by Plaintiffs 
for prevailing in this action and conferring a corporate benefit on CCSB and its 
stockholders.” 
(2) 
On August 16, 2022, CCSB filed a notice of appeal from the post-trial 
opinion and the Order and Judgment.  Upon the filing of the notice of appeal, the 
Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing CCSB to 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.  After this Court’s issuance 
of the notice to show cause, CCSB sought leave from the Court of Chancery to file 
an untimely application for certification of interlocutory appeal or, in the alternative, 
asked the Court of Chancery to clarify whether it intended the Order and Judgment 
to be final or to enter a partial final judgment under Court of Chancery Rule 54(b).  
The Court of Chancery denied the requested relief on September 7, 2022.  On August 
24, 2022, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a fee application, which remains pending in 
the Court of Chancery. 
(3) 
In response to the notice to show cause, CCSB acknowledges that this 
Court has held that a judgment is not final and appealable when an application for 
attorneys’ fees remains outstanding in the trial court.  But CCSB argues that the 
Order and Judgment is final and appealable because the appellees had not filed a fee 
application when CCSB filed this appeal. 
3 
 
(4) 
Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate 
jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final orders.1  “The mere titling 
of an order as a ‘Final Order and Judgment’ is not dispositive of its finality for 
purposes of appeal.”2  Rather, “[a]n 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.”3  In the Order and Judgment, the Court 
of Chancery reserved jurisdiction to consider an application for attorneys’ fees.  
Thus, “[c]learly, the Court of Chancery did not intend the [Order and Judgment] to 
be its final act in the case.”4  The Order and Judgment is therefore interlocutory, and 
this appeal must be dismissed.5 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is hereby 
DISMISSED.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Chief Justice 
 
1 Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi, 2019 WL 549039 (Del. Feb. 12, 2019). 
2 Gaffin v. Teledyne, Inc., 1991 WL 181488 (Del. Aug. 23, 1991). 
3 Wollner v. PearPop, Inc., 2022 WL 2903103, at *1 (Del. July 21, 2022); see also Gaffin, 1991 
WL 181488, at *1 (“An order is final and ripe for appeal when the trial court has clearly declared 
its intention that the order be the court’s final act in a case.” (internal quotations omitted)). 
4 Gaffin, 1991 WL 181488, at *1. 
5 See id. (dismissing appeal as interlocutory where the Court of Chancery, in a “Final Order and 
Judgment,” “reserved jurisdiction with respect to attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and 
administration of the distribution of funds to class members”).