Anderson, Alicia v. Bayhealth Inc.

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 25, 2026
• Docket: 76, 2026
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ALICIA ANDERSON, § § No. 76, 2026 Plaintiff Below, § Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. S25C-11-001 BAYHEALTH, INC. and § BAYHEALTH MEDICAL § CENTER, INC., § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. §

Submitted: March 20, 2026 Decided: March 25, 2026

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

(1) On February 17, 2026, Alicia Anderson filed a notice of interlocutory

appeal from a Superior Court letter order that resolved Anderson’s motion to proceed

in forma pauperis by requiring her to pay a one-time filing fee of $10; directed

Anderson not to attempt to file documents by e-mail; and provided information as

to how to file a complaint that complied with the court’s rules and a motion to file

the complaint under seal. The court further ordered that if Anderson failed to pay

the $10 fee and file a valid complaint by March 6, 2026, the action would be

dismissed. (2) Because a review of the Superior Court docket reflected that Anderson

had not filed an application for certification of an interlocutory appeal, the Senior

Court Clerk of this Court issued a notice directing Anderson to show cause why the

appeal should not be dismissed because Anderson had not complied with Supreme

Court Rule 42. In response to the notice, Anderson argues that filing fees impede

indigent individuals’ access to justice. She states that she filed the notice of appeal

within the time period for filing an appeal from the Superior Court’s order and

therefore complied with Rule 42.

(3) Absent compliance with Rule 42, this Court’s jurisdiction is limited to

the review of final judgments.1 Under Rule 42, Anderson was required to file an

application for certification of the Superior Court’s letter order within ten days of

that order, before filing a notice of interlocutory appeal in this Court.2 Instead,

Anderson filed a notice of interlocutory appeal without ever filing an application for

certification in the Superior Court. Because Anderson has not complied with Rule

42, this appeal must be dismissed.

1 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 2 See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 42(c) (“An application for certification of an interlocutory appeal shall be made in the first instance to the trial court . . . . Such application shall be served and filed within 10 days of the entry of the order from which the appeal is sought or such longer time as the trial court, in its discretion, may order for good cause shown.”).

2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice