Court Opinion

ID: 9959748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 16:02:16.177208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:53.930869
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

  CAMPUS EYE MANAGEMENT,                   §
  LLC,                                     § No. 93, 2024
                                           §
        Defendant Below,                   § Court Below: Court of Chancery
        Appellant,                         § of the State of Delaware
                                           §
        v.                                 § C.A. No. 2023-0671
                                           §
  E. BRUCE DIDONATO,                       §
                                           §
        Plaintiff Below,                   §
        Appellee.                          §

                           Submitted: April 2, 2024
                           Decided: April 12, 2024

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

                                     ORDER

      After consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses, it appears

to the Court that:

      (1)    In this action under 6 Del. C. § 18-110 concerning management of a

limited liability company, the Court of Chancery awarded summary judgment in

favor of the appellee, E. Bruce DiDonato, holding that DiDonato is the manager of

Campus Eye Management, LLC (the “MSO”). The court also held the MSO in

contempt for violating a status quo order and ordered that DiDonato was entitled to

recover the reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses that he incurred in bringing the

contempt motion. The court directed the parties to “confer on a schedule for
submissions to resolve the fees and expenses DiDonato may recover as a sanction

for the MSO’s contempt.”1

       (2)     The MSO appealed. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing

the MSO 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. In response to the notice to show cause, the MSO argues that the Court of

Chancery’s decision is final and appealable because the issue of fees is a collateral

matter and DiDonato has not timely filed a fee application.

       (3)     Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate

jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final orders. 2 “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.”3

The Court of Chancery directed the parties to take further action in the case, and the

amount of attorneys’ fees for which the MSO is responsible remains unresolved.

The appeal is therefore interlocutory and must be dismissed.4

1
  DiDonato v. Campus Eye Mgmt., LLC, 2024 WL 368112, at *11 (Del. Ch. Jan. 31, 2024).
2
  Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi, 2019 WL 549039, at *1 (Del. Feb. 12, 2019); see also id. (stating that
it was for the Court of Chancery to decide in the first instance whether a motion for fees was timely
filed).
3
   Wollner v. PearPop, Inc., 2022 WL 2903103, at *1 (Del. July 21, 2022); see also Gaffin v.
Teledyne, Inc., 1991 WL 181488, at *1 (Del. Aug. 23, 1991) (“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
  See, e.g., Wollner, 2022 WL 2903103 (dismissing appeal as interlocutory where the amount of a
fee award remained unresolved).
                                                 2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.

                          BY THE COURT:

                          /s/ Gary F. Traynor
                          Justice

                            3