Wright v. Reybold Venture Group XXV, LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ERRICK M. WRIGHT, Plaintiff BelowAppellant, v. REYBOLD VENTURE GROUP XXV, LLC, Defendant BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 553, 2012 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County C.A. No. N12C-07-181 Submitted: November 28, 2012 Decided: December 7, 2012 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices ORDER This 7th day of December 2012, upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: (1) The plaintiff-appellant, Errick M. Wright, filed an appeal from the Superior Court s October 1, 2012 order entering a default judgment against him on the counterclaim of the defendant-appellee, Reybold Venture Group XXV, LLC ( Reybold ). The Superior Court docket reflects that Wright s claims against Reybold have not yet been adjudicated by the Superior Court.1 1 Nor has the Reybold s counsel claims that he intended to file a motion for summary judgment with respect to those claims, but that the instant appeal was filed before he could do so. Superior Court directed the entry of a final judgment on Reybold s counterclaim against Wright in accordance with Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b). (2) On October 24, 2012, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing Wright to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order. In his response, Wright states that he believed the Superior Court s October 1, 2012 order was a final order. He asks that the Court consider his appeal as a properly-filed interlocutory appeal. (3) Absent compliance with Rule 42, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final judgments of trial courts.2 An order is deemed to be final if the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order be the court s final act in the case.3 At the time Wright filed his appeal in this Court, his claims against Reybold had not yet been adjudicated by the Superior Court. (4) Until the Superior Court addresses, and finally decides, Wright s claims against Reybold, its judgment of October 1, 2012 is not final. Accordingly, this appeal is premature absent Wright s compliance with the requirements for taking an interlocutory appeal in accordance with Rule 42. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed. 2 3 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973). 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this 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.
