Court Opinion

ID: 9385226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-06 15:02:56.720098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:00.362584
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RICHARD BLANCH, VIVIANNA                 §
BLANCH, RED BRIDGE & STONE,              §
LLC and CLOVIS HOLDINGS LLC,             §   No. 78, 2023
                                         §
           Defendants, Nominal           §   Court Below—Court of Chancery
           Defendant, Counterclaim and §     of the State of Delaware
           Third-Party Plaintiffs-Below, §
           Appellants,                   §   C.A. No. 2018-0394
                                         §
       v.                                §
                                         §
STONE & PAPER INVESTORS, LLC,            §
and CLOVIS HOLDINGS LLC,                 §
                                         §
           Plaintiffs and Counterclaim   §
           Defendants-Below,             §
           Appellees,                    §
                                         §
       and                               §
                                         §
JAD TRADING LLC, DIAMOND                 §
CARTER TRADING, LLC, JOHN                §
DIAMOND, KANOKPAN KHUMPOO,               §
ALBERT CARTER, ELIZABETH                 §
CARTER, EISENBERG & BLAU CPAS, §
P.C., RICHARD EISENBERG, and DD & §
COMPANY, LLP                             §
                                         §
           Counterclaim and Third Party §
           Defendants-Below,             §
           Appellees.                    §

                      Submitted: March 24, 2023
                      Decided:   April 6, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
                                      ORDER

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

appears to the Court that:

      (1)    On March 2, 2023, Defendants, Nominal Defendant, Counterclaim and

Third-Party Plaintiffs-Below/Appellants Richard Blanch, Vivianna Blanch, Red

Bridge & Stone LLC and Clovis Holdings LLC (collectively, “Appellants”) filed a

notice of appeal from multiple opinions and orders of the Court of Chancery in a

breach-of-fiduciary-duty action. The last order appealed was a February 1, 2023

order denying motions for reargument and for leave to file a reply brief. In a letter

dated February 9, 2023, the Appellants asked the Court of Chancery to clarify

whether the February 1, 2023 order was a final judgment in light of outstanding

applications for attorneys’ fees. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing the

Appellants to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for their failure

to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent

interlocutory order.

      (2)    In their response to the notice to show cause, the Appellants contend

that language in the February 1, 2023 order suggests it is a final order even though

competing applications for attorneys’ fees remain outstanding.          Plaintiff and

Counterclaim Defendant-Below/Appellee Stone & Paper Investors, LLC and

Counterclaim and Third-Party Defendants-Below/Appellees JAD Trading LLC,

                                          2
Diamond Carter Trading, LLC, John Diamond, Kanokpan Khumpoo, Albert Carter,

Elizabeth Carter, Eisdenber & Blau CPAS, P.C., Richard Eisenberg, and DD &

Company, LLP argue that this appeal is interlocutory because fee applications are

still pending 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 This Court has repeatedly held that an

order is not final and appealable if the trial has not ruled on an outstanding

application for attorneys’ fees.3 The parties agree that attorneys’ fee applications

remain pending in the Court of Chancery. This appeal must therefore be dismissed

as interlocutory.

       NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

                                            BY THE COURT:

                                            /s/ Gary F. Traynor
                                                  Justice

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
  See, e.g., ICATECH Corp. v. Facchina, 2021 WL 225825, at *1 (Del. Jan. 22, 2021) (dismissing
appeal as interlocutory where applications for attorneys’ fees were pending in the trial court).

                                               3