Court Opinion

ID: 9895723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 16:05:02.378489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:23.805291
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

  CHAMEEKA ROBINSON,                    §
  GUARDIAN OF DERRICK                   § No. 378, 2023
  CRAWFORD,                             §
                                        § Court Below–Superior Court
        Plaintiff Below,                § of the State of Delaware
        Appellant,                      §
                                        § C.A. No. N22C-09-522
        v.                              §
                                        §
  REGAL HEIGHTS                         §
  HEALTHCARE & REHAB                    §
  CENTER, LLC d/b/a REGAL               §
  HEIGHTS HEALTHCARE &                  §
  REHABILITATION CENTER                 §
  and NATIONWIDE                        §
  HEALTHCARE SERVICES,                  §
                                        §
        Defendants Below,               §
        Appellees.                      §

                             Submitted: November 3, 2023
                             Decided:   November 8, 2023

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

                                      ORDER

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

appears to the Court that:

      (1)    On October 9, 2023, the appellant, Chameeka Robinson, guardian of

Derrick Crawford, filed a notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s order—dated

and docketed September 6, 2023—granting the motion to dismiss filed by the

appellees, Regal Heights Healthcare & Rehab Center, LLC d/b/a Regal Heights
Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center and Nationwide Healthcare Services (together,

“Regal Heights”). Because Supreme Court Rule 6 provides that a civil appeal must

be filed within thirty days of the lower court’s order,1 a timely notice of appeal was

due on or before October 6, 2023.

       (2)     The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Robinson to show

cause why her appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. The Court directed

Robinson to file a response to the notice to show cause by October 19, 2023. In his

untimely response to the notice to show cause filed on October 23, 2023, Robinson’s

attorney claims that a member of his support staff “attempted to file a notice of

appeal” on October 5, 2023. According to Robinson’s attorney, his support staff

member “is still unsure of what went wrong as she sincerely thought she had filed

the [notice of appeal].” Regal Heights argues that this appeal should be dismissed

because its untimeliness cannot be excused.

       (3)     Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2 A notice of appeal must be

received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.3 Unless an

appellant can demonstrate that her failure to file a timely notice of appeal is

attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered.4

1
  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i).
2
  Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).
3
  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
4
  Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
                                                2
      (4)    As Regal Heights correctly observed in its response to the notice to

show cause, Robinson’s attorney concedes that his failure to file a timely notice of

appeal in this case is not attributable to court-related personnel. Consequently, this

case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely

filing of a notice of appeal, and this appeal must be dismissed.

      NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court

Rule 29(b), that the appeal be DISMISSED.

                                       BY THE COURT:

                                       /s/ Gary F. Traynor
                                       Justice

                                          3