Erhart v. DirecTV, Inc., et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DEBORAH ERHART and DOUGLAS ERHART, § § § Plaintiffs Below, § Appellants, § § v. § § DIRECTV, INC., a Corporation of § the State of California, and LUXE § COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a § Corporation of the State of Delaware, § and EDDIE MENA, Individually and § as a representative of Luxe § Communications, LLC, § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. § No. 487, 2012 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. N10C-09-019 Submitted: September 4, 2012 Decided: September 19, 2012 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 19th day of September 2012, it appears to the Court that: (1) In September 2010, the plaintiffs-appellants, Deborah Erhart and Douglas Erhart (hereinafter the Erharts ), filed a seven-count complaint seeking damages and statutory remedies arising out of the installation of satellite cable television equipment in their home. In April 2012, the defendants-appellees, DirecTV, Inc., Luxe Communications, Inc., and Eddie Mena, filed six motions in limine. By opinion dated June 20, 2012, the Superior Court granted the motions in limine, and by order dated August 7, 2012 the court denied the Erharts motions to reargue the opinion. By granting the motions in limine, the Superior Court effectively excluded six of the Erharts seven claims. (2) Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42 ( Rule 42 ), the Erharts have petitioned this Court to accept an interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court s August 7, 2012 order on reargument from the June 20, 2012 opinion. By order dated August 30, 2012, the Superior Court denied the Erharts application for certification of an interlocutory appeal. (3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances. The Court has examined the August 7, 2012 order and June 20, 2012 opinion according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42 and has concluded that exceptional circumstances warranting interlocutory review do not exist in this case. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 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.
