McRae d/b/a McRae Enterprises v. Citizens Bank

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DEMARIUS D. McRAE d/b/a McRAE ENTERPRISES, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. CITIZENS BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 459, 2008 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County C.A. No. 08C-02-010 Submitted; September 25, 2008 Decided: November 26, 2008 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 26th day of November 2008, it appears to the Court that: (1) On September 11, 2008, the defendant-below/appellant filed a notice of appeal from a Superior Court arbitrator s order dated August 12, 2008.1 On September 12, 2008, the Clerk issued a notice directing that the appellant show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for this Court s lack of jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an arbitrator s order.2 1 It appears from the Superior Court docket that the arbitrator s order concerned plaintiffbelow/appellee s complaint filed on February 7, 2008. 2 See Del. Const. art. IV, § 11 (2007) (providing for jurisdiction of Supreme Court); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 16.1(k)(11)(C) (2007) (providing that an arbitration order shall not be The appellant s response to the notice to show cause does not address the Court s lack of jurisdiction to consider his appeal. (2) An arbitrator s order is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal to this Court.3 The sole remedy for any party in an action subject to arbitration is a demand for a trial de novo.4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Chief Justice subject to appeal) (repealed on Feb. 5, 2008, effective in civil actions filed after Mar. 1, 2008). 3 Redden v. McGill, 549 A.2d 695, 697-98 (Del. 1988). 4 Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 16.1(k)(11)(D); Williams v. Leager, 2003 WL 1857527 (Del. Supr.) (citing Redden v. McGill, 549 A.2d 695, 697-98 (Del. 1988)). 2

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.