Fardjallah, Khaled v. Christiana Hospital

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 2, 2026
• Docket: 424, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KHALED FARDJALLAH, § § No. 424, 2025 Plaintiff Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. N23C-05-001 CHRISTIANA HOSPITAL, DR. § MARIA SHAH, and MR. § MICHAEL SCHUH, § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. §

Submitted: February 26, 2026 Decided: March 2, 2026

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

ORDER

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

appears to the Court that:

(1) By way of order dated September 24, 2025, the Superior Court granted

summary judgment in favor of the defendants below/appellants. On September 29,

2025, the plaintiff below/appellant, Khaled Fardjallah, filed several motions—

including a timely motion for reargument. That motion was not resolved before

Fardjallah filed his notice of appeal on October 9, 2025, and the record reflects that

the motion remains pending before the Superior Court. The Chief Deputy Clerk

therefore issued a notice to Fardjallah 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. In his response to the notice to show

cause, Fardjallah contends that the Superior Court’s September 24, 2025 is a final

order.

(2) The test for whether an order is final and therefore ripe for appeal is

whether the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order be the court’s

“final act” in a case.1 A judgment is not final for appeal purposes until a timely filed

motion for reargument has been decided.2

(3) In light of Fardjallah’s pending motion for reargument, the Superior

Court’s September 24 order does not constitute a final order. Because Fardjallah

has not attempted to comply with Rule 42, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider

this interlocutory appeal,3 and it must be dismissed.

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

DISMISSED under Supreme Court Rule 29(b) without prejudice to file an appeal

following the entry of a final judgment below.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice

1 J. I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973). 2 Linda D.P. v. Robert J.P., 493 A.2d 968, 969 (Del. 1985). 3 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 2