Court Opinion

ID: 9892319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 16:04:53.579004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:04.914441
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 LAURA PERRYMAN,                          §
                                          § No. 302, 2023
       Defendant Below,                   §
       Appellant,                         § Court Below–Court of Chancery
                                          § of the State of Delaware
       v.                                 §
                                          § C.A. No. 2019-1003
STIMWAVE TECHNOLOGIES                     §
INCORPORATED,                             §
                                          §
       Plaintiff Below,                   §
       Appellee.                          §

                           Submitted: September 13, 2023
                           Decided:   October 20, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

                                       ORDER

      After consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the supplemental

notice of interlocutory appeal, and their exhibits, it appears to the Court that:

      (1)    On August 23, 2023, the appellant, Laura Perryman, filed a notice of

an interlocutory appeal from the Court of Chancery’s August 14, 2023 order

declining to stay the underlying proceedings (the “Order”). The Court of Chancery

denied Perryman’s application the next day, finding that the Order did not determine

an issue of material importance and that none of the Supreme Court Rule 42(b)(iii)

factors supported interlocutory review. On September 13, 2023, Perryman filed a

supplemental notice of appeal, to which she attached the Order and the Court of
Chancery’s order denying her application for the certification of an interlocutory

appeal.1

       (2)    We agree with the Court of Chancery that interlocutory review is

unwarranted in this case: the Order did not decide an issue of material importance

and none of the Rule 42(b)(iii) factors weigh in favor of certification.

       NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is

DISMISSED.

                                            BY THE COURT:

                                            /s/ N. Christopher Griffiths
                                            Justice

1
 Perryman failed to attach other necessary documents to the notice (or supplemental notice) of
appeal—that is, her application for certification or Curonix’s response—as required by Rule
42(d)(iv).
                                               2