Williams v. Mitchell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DANA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff BelowAppellant, v. JOHN MITCHELL, RICHARD DENNIS, ROBERT HAMPTON, DEANNA, BARBARA, MARIA, CLAIRE READER, and LINDA A. BARNETT, Defendants BelowAppellees. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 314, 2005 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County C.A. No. 02C-10-032 Submitted: August 15, 2006 Decided: August 29, 2006 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices ORDER This 29th day of August 2006, it appears to the Court that: (1) The plaintiff-appellant, Dana Williams, filed a pro se notice of appeal from the Superior Court s June 17, 2005 orders, which, first, granted the motion of defendant-appellee Robert Hampton to vacate the entry of default judgment against him and, second, granted the motion to dismiss of the remaining defendants-appellees. (2) On July 26, 2006, the Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing Williams to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed based on his failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.1 Rather than responding to the notice to show cause, Williams, on August 15, 2006, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of his appeal.2 (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).3 Moreover, an order of the Superior Court is final only if it constitutes the court s final act in a case.4 Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final orders.5 (4) Under the above authorities, the Superior Court s order of dismissal as to all defendants except for Robert Hampton is an interlocutory order, as is the Superior Court s order vacating the default judgment against Robert Hampton. Williams could have sought the entry of a final judgment 1 It is undisputed that Robert Hampton remains as a defendant in the Superior Court case. Because the defendants already responded to Williams opening brief and did not stipulate to a dismissal, Williams may not voluntarily dismiss his appeal. Supr. Ct. R. 29(a). 3 Harrison v. Ramunno, 730 A.2d 653, 654 (Del. 1999). 4 J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973). 5 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 2 2 with respect to the defendants dismissed by the Superior Court pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b), but he did not do so. Nor did he attempt to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when appealing from the Superior Court s interlocutory order vacating the default judgment against Robert Hampton. Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this interlocutory appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/Henry duPont Ridgely Justice 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
