Court Opinion

ID: 9909117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 17:02:55.699167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:12.075810
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JERALD HAMMANN,                              §
                                             §
       Plaintiff Below,                      § No. 410, 2023
       Appellant,                            §
                                             § Court Below—Court of Chancery
       v.                                    § of the State of Delaware
                                             §
DENNIS J. CARLO, RICHARD C.                  § C.A. No. 2021-0506
WILLIAMS, HOWARD C.                          §
BIRNDORF, ROSHAWN A. BLUNT,                  §
and DAVID J. MARGUGLIO,                      §
                                             §
       Defendants Below,                     §
       Appellees.                            §
                                             §

                          Submitted: November 17, 2023
                          Decided:   December 11, 2023

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

                                      ORDER

      Upon consideration of the motion to determine whether the appellant’s notice

of appeal is operative or precautionary and the appellees’ response, it appears to the

Court that:

      (1)     The appellant, Jerald Hammann, filed this appeal from multiple orders

and opinions of the Court of Chancery, including a post-trial opinion. The last order

appealed was a November 3, 2023 order granting in part and denying in part

Hammann’s motion for reargument.
       (2)    On November 14, 2023, Hammann filed a motion to determine whether

his appeal was operative or precautionary. Hammann admitted that several motions

remained outstanding in the Court of Chancery, including his motions for sanctions

and the appellees’ motion to enforce the court’s March 24, 2023 order. In response

to the motion, the appellees asserted that this appeal is premature and should be

dismissed because motions remain outstanding in the Court of Chancery.

       (3)    Absent compliance with Rule 42, 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 In its post-trial opinion, the Court of

Chancery stated that the motions for sanctions and the motion to enforce the March

24, 2023 order would “be addressed in a separate decision.”3 The parties agree that

those motions remain pending in the Court of Chancery. This appeal must therefore

be dismissed as interlocutory.

1
  Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).
2
  J.I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973).
3
  Hammann v. Adamis Pharms. Corp., 2023 WL 5424109, at *7 (Del. Ch. Aug. 23, 2023).

                                               2
      NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that this appeal is DISMISSED. The

filing fee paid by Hammann shall apply to any future appeal that he files from a final

order entered in this case.

                                       BY THE COURT:

                                       /s/ Gary F. Traynor
                                             Justice

                                          3