Opinion
No. 439, 2003
Submitted: October 6, 2003
Decided: October 9, 2003
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County C.A. No. 01C-12-013
APPEAL REFUSED
Unpublished Opinion is below
SHONTS v. MCDOWELL, 439 (Del. 10-9-2003) MYEARE K. SHONTS, Plaintiff Below-Appellant, v. KENNETH ALBERT McDOWELL and KENNETH L. McDOWELL, Defendants Below-Appellees. No. 439, 2003 Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: October 6, 2003 Decided: October 9, 2003
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County C.A. No. 01C-12-013
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices.
ORDER
Randy J. Holland, Justice
This 9th day of October 2003, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On September 4, 2003, the plaintiff below, Myeare Shonts, filed a notice of interlocutory appeal with this Court, seeking to appeal from an interlocutory ruling of the Superior Court dated August 5, 2003. The Superior Court's ruling denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim of negligent entrustment but granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim of reckless entrustment. On September 10, 2003, the defendants filed a cross-appeal from the Superior Court's denial of their motion for summary on the negligent entrustment claim.
(2) The Superior Court docket reflects that, despite filing notices of interlocutory appeal in this Court, neither party filed the proper procedure under Supreme Court Rule 42(c) to seek certification of an interlocutory appeal in the Superior Court. Instead, the parties requested the Superior Court to certify specific questions of law pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 41.
(3) The Superior Court wrote to the parties, noting the procedural discrepancies, and gave the parties an opportunity to clarify their intent.
Plaintiff's counsel responded with a letter that indicated plaintiff's desire to seek the Superior Court's certification of the specific questions of law articulated by plaintiff.
(4) On October 2, 2003, the Superior Court denied the parties' respective applications for certification of questions of law under Supreme Court Rule 41. The Superior Court stated that its ruling on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment was the law of the case and that the procedures for certification under Rule 41 therefore did not apply.
Delaware courts may certify questions of law to this Court if, among other things, the certifying court has not decided the question or questions in the case. See DEL. SUPR.CT.R. 41(a)(i).
(5) The record reflects that the parties have failed to follow the proper procedures for certifying an interlocutory appeal to this Court under Supreme Court Rule 42. Both interlocutory appeals could be refused on that basis. Even if we assume, however, that the parties' respective applications for interlocutory review complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 42, we nonetheless conclude that the applications for interlocutory review do not meet the substantive requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused on that basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within interlocutory appeals are REFUSED.