TBD Standard, LLC as Personal Representative of the Estate of Donald Bodick v. Augustus Gogoe, Granda Brown, Joseph Mukaku, and April N. Bailey

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: May 11, 2026
• Docket: 105, 2026
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

TBD STANDARD, LLC as Personal § No. 105, 2026 Representative of the ESTATE OF § DONALD BODICK, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Consol. C.A. No. K22C-06-043 § v. § § AUGUST GOGOE, GRANDA § BROWN, JOSEPH MUKAKU and § APRIL N. BAILEY, § § Plaintiffs Below, § Appellees. §

Submitted: April 16, 20261 Decided: May 11, 2026

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

ORDER

After consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the supplemental

notice, the exhibits, and the transcripts of the interlocutory rulings, it appears to the

Court that:

(1) On July 10, 2021, there was a multi-vehicle accident on Route 1 near

Milford, Delaware. The drivers of the three vehicles involved were Donald Bodick,

1 The supplemental notice of interlocutory appeal was filed on March 19, 2026, but the transcripts of the relevant interlocutory rulings were docketed on April 16, 2026. April N. Bailey, and Augustus Gogoe. Karen Bodick, Bodick’s wife, was a

passenger in his vehicle. Alpha Diaby and Joseph Mukaku were passengers in

Gogoe’s vehicle. The narrative portion of the police report suggested that Bailey was

responsible for causing the accident.

(2) The accident led to the filing of four cases in the Superior Court. On

June 28, 2022, Diaby filed a lawsuit against Bailey, Bodick and Gogoe. On

November 11, 2022, the Bodicks filed a lawsuit against Bailey. In her answer to that

complaint, Bailey included a third-party complaint against Bodick and Gogoe. On

January 27, 2023, Gogoe and his wife Granda Brown filed a lawsuit against Bailey.

On February 2, 2023, Mukaku filed a lawsuit against Bailey. In her answers to those

complaints, Bailey included third-party complaints against Bodick and Gogoe. The

cases were consolidated.

(3) During discovery, depositions of most of the parties, including Bodick,

continued to suggest that Bailey was responsible for causing the accident. On

September 23, 2024, after the statute of limitations had expired, a video of the

accident was discovered. The video contained footage suggesting that Bodick was

potentially responsible for the accident, contradicting Bodick’s statements to police

and deposition testimony.

(4) Based on this video footage, Gogoe, Brown, and Mukaku moved to

amend their complaints to include direct claims against Bodick. Bodick opposed the

2 motion, arguing that the amendments did not relate back to the original complaints

because the requirements of Superior Court Civil Rule 15(c)(2) and (c)(3) were not

met. A Superior Court Commissioner granted the motion on November 7, 2024, and

Bodick moved for reargument. Bodick died in December. On January 13, 2025,

Bailey moved to intervene and amend her answers/third party complaints so that she

could be added as plaintiff and bring a direct action against Bodick and Gogoe.

(5) After delays relating to the substitution of TBD Standard, LLC as the

personal representative of Bodick’s estate and scheduling conflicts, the Superior

Court heard arguments on the motions to reconsider and intervene on February 6,

2026. The court denied the motion for reconsideration, concluding that the

amendments related back to the original complaints under Superior Court Civil Rule

15(c)(3). The court granted Bailey’s motion for intervention.

(6) TBD Standard filed a timely application for certification of an

interlocutory appeal under Supreme Court 42. TBD Standard argued that the Rule

42(b)(iii) factors weighed in favor of certification. Bailey, Gogoe, Brown, and

Mukaku opposed the application.

(7) The Superior Court denied the application for certification. In denying

certification, the Superior Court first found that the interlocutory rulings did not

decide a substantial issue of material importance. The court next considered the

Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria. As to Rule 42(b)(iii)(A) (a question of law resolved for the

3 first time in Delaware), the court rejected TBD’s argument that whether a complaint

can relate back against a known party based on later-discovered evidence is a matter

of first impression supporting certification. The court characterized the issue as

“whether mistake under Superior Court Civil Rule 15(c)(3)(B) is satisfied when an

existing party engages in misrepresentation that influences how litigation is

commenced—which is then contradicted by subsequently-discovered evidence—

and then challenges relation back to prevent the entirety of the case being decided

on its merits.”2 Although this Court has not addressed the issue, the Superior Court

has found that the mistake requirement of Rule 15(c)(3)(B) is satisfied when a

plaintiff is affirmatively misled.

(8) The court agreed with TBD that Rule 42(b)(iii)(D) (the interlocutory

order sustained the controverted jurisdiction of the trial) weighed in favor of

certification because the amended claims were brought after the expiration of the

statute of limitations. But the court rejected TBD’s contention that Rule 42(b)(iii)(G)

(interlocutory review may terminate the litigation) and 42(b)(iii)(H) (interlocutory

review may serve considerations of justice) weighed in favor certification.

Regardless of whether the interlocutory rulings were reversed, the litigation, which

was almost four years old, would continue and TBD would remain a party. The court

2 Diaby v. Bailey, 2026 WL 659105, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 9, 2026).

4 found the remaining Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria inapplicable. Finally, the court found

that the benefits of interlocutory review would not outweigh the probable costs.

(9) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound

discretion of this Court.3 In the exercise of our discretion and giving due weight to

the Superior Court’s view, we conclude that the application for interlocutory review

does not meet the strict standards for certification under Rule 42(b). We agree with

the Superior Court that the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria do not weigh in favor of

interlocutory review. Exceptional circumstances that would merit interlocutory

review do not exist,4 and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not

outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory

appeal.5

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this interlocutory appeal is

REFUSED.

BY THE COURT:

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

3 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 4 Id. 42(b)(ii). 5 Id. 42(b)(iii). 5