Opinion
No. 493, 1998.
Decided: December 18, 1998.
Superior CA 98C-02-052.
Appeal refused.
CITIZENS UTILITIES COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. CC/USA REPRESENTATIVE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 493, 1998. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: December 3, 1998. Decided: December 18, 1998.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
ORDER
This 18th day of December 1998, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Citizens Utilities Company ("Citizens"), has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court dated October 23, 1998. The Superior Court's interlocutory order denied Citizens' motion to dismiss the complaint of the plaintiff, CC/USA Representative, Inc. ("Representative").
(2) Representative filed a complaint against Citizens alleging claims of breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference with economic advantage and requesting, among other things, damages in the amount of $16 million. Alternatively, Representative alleged promissory estoppel and requested damages of $7 million. The Superior Court denied Citizens' motion to dismiss holding that Representative was a real party in interest, that the Superior Court had subject matter jurisdiction, and that Representative's complaint alleged all of the requisite elements and contained particularized facts sufficient to support its claims.
(3) Citizens filed an application for certification to take an interlocutory appeal, which the Superior Court refused on the ground that its interlocutory order did not meet the criteria of Rule 42 because the denial of Citizens' motion to dismiss did not determine a substantial issue or establish a legal right.
(4) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court and are accepted only in exceptional circumstances. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b). We have examined the Superior Court's October 23, 1998 decision according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42. In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that exceptional circumstances do not exist in this case to merit interlocutory review of the Superior Court's decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within interlocutory appeal be, and the same hereby is, REFUSED.