IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JOSEPH DANIEL PIRESTANI, §
§
Cross-Petitioner Below § No. 112, 2018
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Court of Chancery
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
KEVIN J. REAGAN, § C.A. No. 17950-N
§
Cross-Petitioner Below, §
Appellee, §
§
and §
§
ATTORNEY AD LITEM, §
§
Appellee. §
Submitted: March 5, 2018
Decided: March 29, 2018
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 29th day of March 2018, upon consideration of the notice of appeal and
the notice of interlocutory appeal, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On March 5, 2018, the appellant, Joseph Daniel Pirestani, filed a notice
of appeal from the following Court of Chancery rulings: (i) a September 15, 2017
letter from the guardianship case manager regarding the powers and duties of the
guardian; (ii) a November 8, 2017 order denying as moot Pirestani’s motion to alter
or amend the September 15, 2017 letter; (iii) a November 8, 2017 order clarifying
the powers and duties of the guardian; and (iv) a January 31, 2018 order denying
most of Pirestani’s motion for reargument of the November 8, 2017 orders, but
allowing the issue of whether the guardian should continue serving a guardian of the
property to proceed. Pirestani also filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from: (i) a
December 28, 2017 letter stating that the Court of Chancery would consider exhibits
submitted by Pirestani and that there was no need for Pirestani’s motion for
admission of additional evidence; and (ii) a January 31, 2018 order denying
Pirestani’s motion for reargument of the December 28, 2017 letter.
(2) Although Pirestani now characterizes one January 31, 2018 order as
final and the other January 31, 2018 order as interlocutory, he applied for
certification of interlocutory appeals from both orders in the Court of Chancery on
February 14, 2018. The Court of Chancery denied certification on February 16,
2018.
(3) An order is deemed final and appealable if the trial court has declared
its intention that the order be the court’s final act in disposing of all justiciable
matters within its jurisdiction.1 Neither January 31, 2018 order is final. Both orders
contemplate additional proceedings in the Court of Chancery. The Court of
Chancery docket also reflects that the parties continue to litigate their disputes. We
therefore treat both of Pirestani’s appeals as interlocutory.
1
J.I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973).
2
(4) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound
discretion of the Court.2 In the exercise of our discretion, we have concluded that
the applications for interlocutory review do not meet the strict standards for
certification under Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory
appeals are REFUSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
2
Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v).
3