MILLER v. PURCELL, 795 A.2d 667 (Del. 2002)

No. 638, 2001Supreme Court of Delaware.Submitted: January 4, 2002
Decided: April 11, 2002

Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 97C-05-054.

Appeal Dismissed.

Unpublished Opinion is below.

KENNETH A. MILLER, JR. and SANGAY MILLER, his wife, Plaintiffs Below-Appellants, and BELL ATLANTIC-DELAWARE, INC., Plaintiff Below-Appellee, v. PATRELL Y. PURCELL, et al., Defendants Below-Appellees. No. 638, 2001 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: January 4, 2002 Decided: April 11, 2002

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.

MYRON T. STEELE, Justice.

ORDER
This 11th day of April 2002, it appears to the Court that:

(1) Plaintiffs-appellants, Kenneth A. Miller, Jr. and Sangay Miller, filed an appeal from the November 15, 2001 order of the Superior Court granting the motion of plaintiff-appellee, Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., to enforce a worker’s compensation lien.

(2) On December 19, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellants to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed because it is from an interlocutory, and not a final, order. On January 4, 2002,[1] the appellants filed a response to the notice to show cause. In the response, the appellants concede that the Superior Court’s November 15, 2001 order was not certified as a final order pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b).

(3) When a civil action involves multiple claims and multiple parties, a judgment regarding any claim or any party does not become final until the entry of the last judgment that resolves all claims as to all parties unless an interlocutory ruling as to a claim or party is certified pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b).[2] There has been no such certification here.

(4) The Court has concluded that the Superior Court’s November 15, 2001 order is an interlocutory, and not a final, order.[3] The appellants have failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(c) and (d) and, absent compliance, this Court must decline to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.[4]

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED.