Court Opinion

ID: 9406800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-03 19:03:40.341018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:33.358950
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

  SARN SD3 LLC,                         §
                                        §   No. 184, 2023
        Plaintiff Below,                §
        Appellant,                      §   Court Below–Superior Court
                                        §   of the State of Delaware
        v.                              §
                                        §   C.A. No. N17C-12-185
  CZECHOSLOVAK GROUP                    §
  A.S.,                                 §
                                        §
        Defendant Below,                §
        Appellee.                       §

                             Submitted: June 20, 2023
                             Decided:   July 3, 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 May 26, 2023, the appellant, SARN SD3 LLC (“SARN”), filed a

notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s April 27, 2023 decision denying its

motion to amend the Superior Court’s December 23, 2020 decision on SARN’s

motion for partial summary judgment. Because the court’s order did not appear to

be a final order, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to SARN to show cause why
this appeal should not be dismissed for its failure to comply with Supreme Court

Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.

         (2)     SARN has responded to the notice to show cause and notes that it filed

this appeal before the Superior Court entered a final judgment as a precaution to

preserve its right to appeal. At the Court’s direction, the appellee, Czechoslovak

Group A.S. (“CGA”), also responded to the notice to show cause. CGA avers that

the Superior Court’s order is interlocutory and observes that the parties have

submitted competing forms of final judgment and order, which the Superior Court

has taken under advisement. CGA argues that this appeal must be dismissed as an

impermissible interlocutory appeal. We agree.

         (3)     Absent compliance with Rule 42, the appellate jurisdiction of 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 It is clear from

the Superior Court docket—which reflects that the Superior Court has not yet acted

on the parties’ competing forms of final judgment and order—that the Superior

Court’s April 27, 2023 decision did not dispose of all justiciable matters in this case.

1
    Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).
2
    J. I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. Williams Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973).
                                                  2
SARN was therefore required to comply with the provisions of Rule 42 or await the

Superior Court’s entry of a final order.

      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