IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RICHARD BLANCH, VIVIANNA §
BLANCH, RED BRIDGE & STONE, §
LLC and CLOVIS HOLDINGS LLC, § No. 78, 2023
§
Defendants, Nominal § Court Below—Court of Chancery
Defendant, Counterclaim and § of the State of Delaware
Third-Party Plaintiffs-Below, §
Appellants, § C.A. No. 2018-0394
§
v. §
§
STONE & PAPER INVESTORS, LLC, §
and CLOVIS HOLDINGS LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs and Counterclaim §
Defendants-Below, §
Appellees, §
§
and §
§
JAD TRADING LLC, DIAMOND §
CARTER TRADING, LLC, JOHN §
DIAMOND, KANOKPAN KHUMPOO, §
ALBERT CARTER, ELIZABETH §
CARTER, EISENBERG & BLAU CPAS, §
P.C., RICHARD EISENBERG, and DD & §
COMPANY, LLP §
§
Counterclaim and Third Party §
Defendants-Below, §
Appellees. §
Submitted: March 24, 2023
Decided: April 6, 2023
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses, it
appears to the Court that:
(1) On March 2, 2023, Defendants, Nominal Defendant, Counterclaim and
Third-Party Plaintiffs-Below/Appellants Richard Blanch, Vivianna Blanch, Red
Bridge & Stone LLC and Clovis Holdings LLC (collectively, “Appellants”) filed a
notice of appeal from multiple opinions and orders of the Court of Chancery in a
breach-of-fiduciary-duty action. The last order appealed was a February 1, 2023
order denying motions for reargument and for leave to file a reply brief. In a letter
dated February 9, 2023, the Appellants asked the Court of Chancery to clarify
whether the February 1, 2023 order was a final judgment in light of outstanding
applications for attorneys’ fees. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing the
Appellants to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for their failure
to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent
interlocutory order.
(2) In their response to the notice to show cause, the Appellants contend
that language in the February 1, 2023 order suggests it is a final order even though
competing applications for attorneys’ fees remain outstanding. Plaintiff and
Counterclaim Defendant-Below/Appellee Stone & Paper Investors, LLC and
Counterclaim and Third-Party Defendants-Below/Appellees JAD Trading LLC,
2
Diamond Carter Trading, LLC, John Diamond, Kanokpan Khumpoo, Albert Carter,
Elizabeth Carter, Eisdenber & Blau CPAS, P.C., Richard Eisenberg, and DD &
Company, LLP argue that this appeal is interlocutory because fee applications are
still pending in the Court of Chancery.
(3) Absent compliance with 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 intention that the order be the court’s final act in disposing of
all justiciable matters within its jurisdiction.2 This Court has repeatedly held that an
order is not final and appealable if the trial has not ruled on an outstanding
application for attorneys’ fees.3 The parties agree that attorneys’ fee applications
remain pending in the Court of Chancery. This appeal must therefore be dismissed
as interlocutory.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice
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
See, e.g., ICATECH Corp. v. Facchina, 2021 WL 225825, at *1 (Del. Jan. 22, 2021) (dismissing
appeal as interlocutory where applications for attorneys’ fees were pending in the trial court).
3