Opinion
C.A. No. 98C-06-297-WTQ.
Submitted: February 3, 2000.
Decided: February 10, 2000.
Letter Opinion on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal — NO ACTION TAKEN .
L. Vincent Ramunno, Esquire Ramunno Ramunno, P.A. 903 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801
Peter Campbell, Esquire Swartz Campbell Detweiler 919 Market Street P.O. Box 330 Wilmington, DE 19899
Christian J. Singewald, Esquire White Williams 824 N. Market Street Suite 902 Wilmington, DE 19801
Robert J. Leoni, Esquire Morgan Shelsby Leoni 200 Continental Drive, #109 Newark, DE 19713
Gentlemen:
I note that counsel for both sides are in agreement that an interlocutory appeal is appropriate in the above-captioned case. While I agree, the determination establishes a legal right and presents a substantive issue (Supreme Court Rule 42(b)(iii)) which evidently has not previously been decided by the Supreme Court of Delaware, I find it difficult to conclude that the issue is substantial and that there exist important and relevant reasons for an immediate determination by the Supreme Court of the question certified (Supreme Court Rule 41(b)). Admittedly, it would be useful to this case to have the matter finally determined prior to further litigation in the Trial Court. It appears the Supreme Court Rule permits me to punt because the Rule specifically contemplates the situation where no action is taken by the Trial Court (Supreme Court Rule 42(d)(iv)(E)). I therefore decline to enter any order on the application, with the intent to leave the matter in the sound judgment of the Supreme Court, where the decision ultimately lies. The Trial Court has no particular perspective of value in this case and I am sure the Supreme Court can readily decide the issue without advice from me.
Sincerely,
William T. Quillen