No. 256, 2000.Supreme Court of Delaware.
Decided: June 30, 2000.
Chancery (Sussex) CA 1967-S.
Appeal Dismissed.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
JEFFREY EVERETT, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. KAREN ROWE AND RICHARD ROWE, Appellees. No. 256, 2000. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: June 19, 2000. Decided: June 30, 2000.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 30th day of June 2000, it appears to the Court that:
1) On May 31, 2000, the Clerk having issued a notice directing the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) for the appellant’s failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order. On June 19, 2000, the appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause.
2) The appellant states that the notice to show cause does not allege specifically how the appellant failed to comply with Rule 42 of the Supreme Court rules. The appellant does state that the Court of Chancery has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss. The appellant’s other concerns appear to address non-compliance by plaintiffs with the Court of Chancery filing deadlines.
3) The test for whether an order is final and therefore ripe for appeal is whether the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order be the court’s “final act” in a case. J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corporation of Delaware v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., Del. Supr., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (1973). At the time appellant filed this appeal in this Court, the Court of Chancery had yet to determine the motion to dismiss. Appellant’s right of appeal remains intact until the Court of Chancery has disposed of all matters, including the motion to dismiss.
4) Since the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42 have not been met by the appellant, the appeal must be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that the within appeal be and hereby is DISMISSED pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 29(b) and 42.[*]