Bryan Winder v. Shequitta Truitt

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: January 23, 2026
• Docket: 510, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

BRYAN WINDER, § § No. 510, 2025 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. S20C-03-039 SHEQUITA TRUITT, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: January 12, 2026 Decided: January 23, 2026

Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

Ater consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses, it

appears to the Court that:

(1) On December 4, 2025, the Superior Court granted in part and denied in

part the motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial

filed by the defendant-below/appellant, Bryan Winder. On December 6, 2025, the

Superior Court issued two separate orders: one awarding the plaintiff-

below/appellee, Shequita Truitt, court costs; and one awarding Truitt pre- and post-

judgment interest. Both orders directed the parties to prepare an order for the court’s

signature. On December 17, 2025, Winder filed a notice of appeal from the Superior

Court’s December 4 order. Because the court’s December 4 order did not appear to be a final order, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice to Winder to show cause

why this appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Supreme

Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.

(2) In his response to the notice to show cause, Winder acknowledges that

“a final order regarding interest and costs has not been entered” and does not object

to the characterization of this appeal as interlocutory.1 At the Court’s direction,

Truitt also responded to the notice to show cause and argues that this appeal is

interlocutory. Both parties acknowledge that there is an outstanding dispute as to

whether pre-judgment interest should be awarded to Truitt and, if so, how it should

be allocated among the defendants.

(3) Having carefully reviewed the parties’ positions and the Superior Court

record, the Court concludes that the appeal is interlocutory. The Superior Court’s

action on the dispute regarding the award of interest will require an exercise of

judicial discretion in deciding whether to award pre-judgment interest to Truitt and,

if so, how the award will be allocated among the defendants.

(4) A judgment is final for purposes of appeal when it disposes of all

justiciable matters.2 Here, the Superior Court’s order resolving Winder’s motion for

judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial was not a final

1 Winder’s Resp. to Notice to Show Cause, at 1. 2 J. I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973). 2 judgment. Absent compliance with Rule 42, this Court has no jurisdiction to

consider an interlocutory appeal,3 and this appeal must be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal be

DISMISSED under Supreme Court Rule 29(b) without prejudice as to any future

appeal following the entry of a final judgment below.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow Justice

3 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 3