James v. A.C. Moore Arts and Crafts Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SHARON M. JAMES, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellant, § § v. § § A.C. MOORE ARTS AND CRAFTS § INC./SBAR’S INC., et al., § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. § No. 563, 2019 Court Below—United States District Court for the District of Delaware Civ. No. 18-063-CFC Submitted: January 13, 2020 Decided: January 16, 2020 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices. ORDER This 16th day of January 2020, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Sharon James, is engaged in litigation in the United District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”). She purported to file this appeal from an order of the District Court. (2) On December 31, 2019, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed based on this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the District Court. In response to the notice, James argues that this Court should accept the appeal as an interlocutory appeal under Delaware Supreme Court Rule 42. Although unclear, she also appears to suggest that this Court should accept the case under Delaware Supreme Court Rule 41, as a certification of questions of law. (3) This Court has no jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the District Court, whether from a final or interlocutory order.1 Moreover, this Court’s jurisdiction over certified questions of law may be invoked only upon certification by a judge of specified courts or other governmental bodies, not by a litigant. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice 1 DEL. CONST. Art. IV, § 11. 2 Id. Art. IV, § 11(8); DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 41(a), (c)(i), (ii). See also Harmon v. Wilson, 2007 WL 2993569 (Del. Oct. 15, 2007) (dismissing appeal that failed to satisfy requirements for seeking certification of questions of law under Rule 41). 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.
