Opinion
C.A. No. S11A-03-003 RFS
11-04-2011
SEA WATCH INTERNAT'L, LTD., Appellant v. DANA MORRISON AND THE UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APP. BD., Appellees
This 20th day of October 2011, it appears to the Court that:
1. Sea Watch International, Ltd. ("Sea Watch") filed an appeal of a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board") granting unemployment benefits to Dana Morrison ("Morrison") for a time specified by the Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment; and
2. Morrison failed to file an answering brief in compliance with the scheduling order; and
3. Morrison did not respond to the final delinquent notice; and
4. Morrison was given an extension of time and notice that failure to file an answering brief by a date certain would result in Sea Watch's appeal being granted without further notice; and
5. Morrison did not file an answering brief despite multiple opportunities to do so; and
6. When a party makes no filing, showing or explanation of any kind, the Court must maintain its neutrality and will not advocate that party's position sua sponte ;and
7. This Court has previously found that even where an appeal may not have been granted if the opposing party had complied with Super. Ct. Civ. R. 107, a board decision may be reversed because of the appellee's "failure to diligently prosecute and file its brief pursuant to Rule 107(e)"; and
8. Morrison's failure to file an answering brief is a violation of Super. Ct. Civ. R. 107(e); and
9. As stated, Morrison received notice of the time to file an answering brief. He also received a final delinquent notice. Despite his continued silence, he was given an extension of time. No answering brief was filed. Morrison now stands in procedural default.
Sprung v. Selbyville Cleaners, 2007 WL 1218683 (Del. Super.).
Crews v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 2011 WL 2083880, *3 (quoting Hunter v. First USA/Bank One, 2004 838715, *5 (Del. Super.)).
Elder v. Careers USA, 2011 WL 3081437, *1 (Del. Super.).
Byrd v. Westoff USA, Inc., 2011 WL 3275156, *2 (Del. Super.).
--------
Therefore, Sea Watch's appeal is GRANTED, and the Board's decision is REVERSED. The cause is remanded to the Board for action in accordance with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Richard F. Stokes, Judge Original to Prothonotary
cc: Dana Morrison
Thomas H. Ellis, Esquire
David N. Rutt, Esquire