Anderson v. Valvoline, Inc.

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: June 6, 2025
• Docket: 183, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ALICIA ANDERSON, § § Plaintiff Below, § No. 183, 2025 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § VALVOLINE, INC., VALVOLINE § C.A. No. N24C-12-125 INSTANT OIL CHANGE, HENLEY § ENTERPRISES,INC./MID- § ATLANTIC LUBES, § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. §

Submitted: May 19, 2025 Decided: June 6, 2025

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

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to

the Court that:

(1) On April 25, 2025, the appellant, Alicia Anderson, filed a notice of

appeal from a Superior Court order, docketed on January 13, 2025, denying her

untimely motion for reconsideration of a Superior Court order, docketed on

December 23, 2024, dismissing her complaint as factually frivolous and legally

frivolous under 10 Del. C. § 8803(b). The complaint identified several entities as

defendants and listed multiple civil and criminal statutes, but did not plead any facts concerning the applicability or violation of the identified statutes and the basis for

the $900,000 in damages Anderson sought. Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a), a

timely notice of appeal from (i) the dismissal of the complaint would have been filed

by January 22, 2025; and (ii) the denial of the motion for reconsideration would have

been filed by February 12, 2025.

(2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Anderson to show

cause why the appeal should not be dismissed because (i) Anderson did not serve

the appellees before filing the appeal, as required by Supreme Court Rule 10; and

(ii) permitting service now would be futile because the notice of appeal was filed

more than thirty days after the Superior Court’s orders dismissing the complaint and

the untimely motion for reconsideration.

(3) In response to the notice show cause, Anderson argues that the Superior

Court did not provide her with notice and an opportunity to respond, as provided in

Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 41(e), before dismissing her complaint 1 and

that she was not notified of the denial of her motion for reconsideration until April

1, 2025. She also contends that she could not serve the appellees with the notice of

appeal because the Superior Court did not authorize service of her complaint.

1 But cf. id. (providing for dismissal of complaint upon initial review under certain circumstances); Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. Proc. 41(f) (authorizing dismissal without notice when a complaint “manifestly fails on its face to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court and where the Court concludes, in the exercise of its discretion, that the giving of notice would serve no meaningful purpose and that any response would be of no avail”). 2 (4) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2 An appellant’s pro se status does

not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of

Supreme Court Rule 6.3 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file

a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely

appeal cannot be considered.4

(5) A timely filed motion for reargument is the appropriate device for

seeking reconsideration of a trial court’s decision,5 including on the grounds that the

decision was procedurally improper. In the Superior Court, a litigant must file such

a motion within five days of when the challenged order is filed.6 Intermediate

Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are excluded in the computation of that

deadline.7

(6) Thus, Anderson’s motion for reconsideration of the Superior Court’s

order dismissing her complaint was due on January 2, 2025. Anderson’s motion for

reconsideration, dated January 7, 2025 and docketed on January 13, 2025, was

untimely, and it therefore did not toll the time for filing an appeal from the Superior

2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 3 Carr, 554 A.2d at 779. 4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 5 Samuel v. State, 2010 WL 3245109, at *1 (Del. Aug. 17, 2010). 6 Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. Proc. 59(e) (“A motion for reargument shall be served and filed within 5 days after the filing of the Court’s opinion or decision.”). 7 Id. 6(a). 3 Court’s dismissal of her complaint.8 Even assuming Anderson could demonstrate

that her failure file a timely notice of appeal from the denial of her motion for

reconsideration was attributable to court-related personnel, that motion was untimely

and did not toll the time for appeal of the order dismissing her complaint. The appeal

is therefore dismissed.

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

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

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

8 See McDaniel v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 860 A.2d 321, 323 (Del. 2004) (stating that “a motion for reargument will delay the finality of a judgment only if it is filed in a timely manner” and rejecting contention that the five-day period established in Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) is enlarged when the court mails the decision to the parties). 4