IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
§
In the matter of DEBORAH § No. 466, 2015
REAGAN PIRESTANI, an §
alleged disabled person. § Court Below—Court of Chancery
§ of the State of Delaware,
§ C.M. No. 17950-N-ML
Submitted: October 19, 2015
Decided: October 21, 2015
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 21st day of October 2015, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On August 27, 2015, the appellant, Joseph Daniel Pirestani, filed a
notice of appeal from a Court of Chancery order denying his request for
enlargement of time and adopting the master’s final order for appointment of a
guardian. Before the notice of appeal was filed, Pirestani filed a timely motion for
reargument in the Court of Chancery. The Court of Chancery granted the motion
for reargument and gave Pirestani additional time to file an opening brief in
support of his exceptions to the master’s report.
(2) On October 2, 2015, Pirestani filed a motion to remand this appeal
and to suspend briefing in this Court until the Court of Chancery issued a final
ruling on the master’s report. The Clerk issued a notice to show cause directing
Pirestani to show why this appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to comply
with Supreme Court Rule 42 in filing an appeal from an interlocutory order. In his
response to the notice to show cause, Pirestani acknowledges that the Court of
Chancery has not made a final ruling in the proceedings below and therefore the
order on appeal is interlocutory.
(3) Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, this Court is limited
to the review of a trial court’s final judgment.1 An order is deemed final and
appealable if the trial court has declared its intent that the order be the court’s final
act in disposing of all justiciable matters within its jurisdiction.2 A timely-filed
motion for reargument tolls the finality of a judgment and the time period for filing
an appeal.3 In light of the timely motion for reargument pending in the Court of
Chancery at the time of the notice of appeal, the granting of the motion for
reargument, and the ongoing proceedings in the Court of Chancery, the order on
appeal is interlocutory because it did not finally determine and terminate the Court
of Chancery proceedings.
(4) Pirestani acknowledges that he has not complied with the
requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction
to entertain the appeal and the appeal must be dismissed. Pirestani may file a
notice of appeal after the Court of Chancery issues a final order.
1
Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).
2
J.I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973).
3
Tomasetti v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y, 672 A.2d 61, 64 (Del. 1996).
2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
3