Vanella v. Duran

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 7, 2025
• Docket: 25, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ROBERT E. VANELLA, on § behalf of THE DELAWARE § No. 25, 2025 CALL, § § Court Below–Superior Court Appellant Below, § of the State of Delaware Appellant, § § C.A. No. K24A-02-002 v. § § CHRISTINA DURAN, in her § official capacity as FOIA § Coordinator for DELAWARE § DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY § AND HOMELAND SECURITY, § DELAWARE STATE POLICE, § § Appellee Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: February 10, 2025 Decided: March 7, 2025

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses

thereto, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Robert E. Vanella, on behalf of The Delaware Call, filed

this appeal from the Superior Court’s December 23, 2024 order, which affirmed in

part and reversed in part the Department of Justice’s decision upholding the denial of Vanella’s request under the Freedom of Information Act for information and

documents from the Delaware State Police. Because the court’s order did not appear

to be a final order, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to Vanella 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 interlocutory order.

(2) Vanella has responded to the notice to show cause and argues that the

Superior Court intended the December 23, 2024 order to be its final act in the case.

The record reflects that, after the Superior Court issued that order, Vanella filed an

“Unopposed Motion to Set Date to File a Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs”

together with a proposed order. The Superior Court signed the proposed order, which

states, “the deadline for [Vanella]’s motion to collect attorney’s fees and costs under

29 Del. C. § 10005(d) shall be thirty (30) days after the window to take an appeal in

this matter has closed, or thirty (30) days after a final order is entered subsequent to

an appeal, whichever is later.” Vanella argues that this language demonstrates that,

“even though the Superior Court has not yet resolved the issue of attorneys’ fees and

costs, the 12/23 Order is ripe for appeal.”1 Vanella also claims that attorney fees

should be “understood” to be part of “costs” and argues that, because a pending

motion for costs does not affect the finality of a judgment, so too here.2

1 Vanella’s Resp. to Notice to Show Cause, at 3. 2 Id. at 5. 2 (3) At the Court’s request, the appellee, Christina Duran, in her official

capacity as FOIA Coordinator for Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland

Security, Delaware State Police, also responded to the notice to show cause. Duran

points to Vanella’s request to set a deadline for moving for attorney fees as evidence

that the December 23, 2024 order does not represent the Superior Court’s last act in

this case. Duran argues that judicial efficiency requires that this Court review the

merits of Vanella’s appeal together with any award of attorney fees and that this

appeal should be dismissed as interlocutory. We agree.

(4) A final judgment is one that “determines the merits of the controversy

or the rights of the parties and leaves nothing for future determination or

consideration.”3 We have held that a pending motion for costs does not affect the

finality of a judgment because the further action required of the court is a “purely

ministerial act”; by contrast, a pending motion for attorney fees renders an appeal

interlocutory because the court must exercise its discretion when fashioning an

appropriate award.4 Although there is no current pending motion for attorney fees

here, it is clear that (i) Vanella intends to seek an award for attorney fees and (ii) the

Superior Court is aware of his intent to do so. Under the circumstances, we cannot

3 Werb v. D’Alessandro, 606 A.2d 117, 119 (Del. 1992) (citation omitted). 4 Black v. Staffieri, 2013 WL 1045221, at *1 (Del. Mar. 13, 2013); Pollard v. The Placers, Inc., 703 A.2d 1211 (Del. 1997) (discussing the various factors that a trial court should consider when fixing an award of attorney’s fees). 3 conclude that there is nothing for future determination or consideration before the

Superior Court. Absent compliance with Rule 42, this Court has no jurisdiction to

consider an interlocutory appeal,5 and this appeal must be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court

Rule 29(b), that the appeal be DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice

5 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 4