Felicia Scarangello v. Mary Culley, Esquire and Morris James LLP

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 11, 2025
• Docket: 66, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

FELICIA SCARANGELLO, § Individually, THE ESTATE OF § No. 66, 2025 ALETHA P. SCARANGELLO, § by FELICIA SCARANGELLO, § Court Below–Superior Court Personal Representative, § of the State of Delaware § Plaintiffs Below, § C.A. No. N23C-09-185 Appellants, § § v. § § MARY CULLEY, ESQUIRE and § MORRIS JAMES, LLP, § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. §

Submitted: February 25, 2025 Decided: March 11, 2025

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

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

thereto, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, the Estate of Aletha P. Scarangello by Felicia

Scarangello (the “Estate”), filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s January 17,

2025 order, which partially granted the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants

below/appellees, Mary Culley, Esquire and Morris James, LLP. Because the court’s

order did not appear to be a final order, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to the Estate to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for its failure to

comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an interlocutory

order. The Estate has responded to the notice to show cause and takes no position

with respect to the finality of the judgment below.

(2) “When a civil action involves multiple claims and multiple parties, a

judgment regarding any claim or any party does not become final until the entry of

the last judgment that resolves all claims as to all parties unless an interlocutory

ruling as to a claim or party is certified pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b).”1

The Superior Court’s January 17, 2025 order granted the defendants’ motion to

dismiss the Estate’s claims, but Felicia Scarangello’s claims remain pending.

(3) Because claims remain pending in the Superior Court and the Estate did

not seek the entry of a final judgment under Rule 54(b), the Superior Court’s January

17, 2025 order is interlocutory. Absent compliance with Rule 42, this Court has no

jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal,2 and this appeal must be dismissed.

1 Williams v. Mitchell, 2006 WL 2535098, at *1 (Del. Aug. 29, 2006). 2 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 2 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/ Gary F. Traynor Justice