Anderson v. General Motors, LLC

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: June 20, 2024
• Docket: 67, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ROLAND ANDERSON, § § Plaintiff Below, § No. 67, 2024 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, § C.A. No. N24C-01-002 § Defendant Below § Appellee. §

Submitted: June 17, 2024 Decided: June 20, 2024

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

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response,

it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Roland Anderson, filed this appeal from a Superior

Court order denying his motion for reargument of the court’s dismissal of his

complaint. Anderson moved to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. After the

Court denied the motion, the Senior Court Clerk sent Anderson a letter on May 22,

2024, directing him to pay the filing fee by June 5, 2024, or a notice to show cause

would issue.

(2) Anderson then filed several documents in which he seemed to seek to

“withdraw” or dismiss the appeal without prejudice and, while not entirely clear, perhaps request additional relief from the Court. One of the documents, which

Anderson filed on June 5, 2024, attached an order that was entered by the Superior

Court on May 29, 2024. The Superior Court order addressed a “Motion to Stay”

filed by Anderson on February 29, 2024. The order noted that Anderson had filed

the motion after filing this appeal, which “[a]rguably . . . divested [the Superior]

Court of jurisdiction over the motion.” The order further stated: “Since then, the

Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment of this Court and remanded the file here.

In order to ensure the clarity of the docket in this Court, the Court rules the Motion

to Stay at Item 13 on the docket is denied as moot.”

(3) This Court has not yet ruled on the merits of the appeal or remanded

the matter to the Superior Court, because Anderson has not yet satisfied the

procedural requirements for perfecting the appeal, nor has briefing occurred. In light

of the document that Anderson filed on June 5 and his failure to heed the direction

to pay the filing fee by June 5, on June 7, 2024, the Clerk’s office sent Anderson a

letter acknowledging receipt of Anderson’s various filings; informing Anderson

that, contrary to the Superior Court’s May 29 order, the appeal remained pending

and the matter had not been remanded to Superior Court; and enclosing a notice

directing Anderson to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for his

failure to pay the filing fee by June 5 as previously directed.

2 (4) In response to the notice to show cause, Anderson again points to the

Superior Court’s May 29 order stating that this Court affirmed the Superior Court

and remanded the case. He also states that some of his filings have not been

addressed. He does not address his failure to pay the filing fee.

(5) Under the rules of this Court, a party filing an appeal must pay the

applicable filing fees, unless the Court authorizes the commencement of the appeal

without prepayment of fees on the grounds that the party is indigent.1 The Court

denied Anderson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and provided him several

opportunities to pay the filing fee; Anderson was also informed that the appeal had

not been decided and the matter had not been remanded to Superior Court. In light

of Anderson’s failure to pay the filing fee, this appeal must be dismissed.2

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

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice

1 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 20(a), (h). 2 E.g., Kostyshyn v. New Castle County, 2023 WL 7383740, at *1 (Del. Nov. 7, 2023). 3