Icatech Corp. v. Facchina, 012221 DESC, 434, 2020

Docket Nº434, 2020
Opinion JudgeCollins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice
Party NameICATECH CORPORATION and EMPRESAS ICA, S.A.B. DE. C.V., Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs-Below, Appellants, v. PAUL V. FACCHINA, SR., individually and as Sellers' Representative, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant-Below, Appellee.
Judge PanelBefore SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.
Case DateJanuary 22, 2021
CourtSupreme Court of Delaware

ICATECH CORPORATION and EMPRESAS ICA, S.A.B. DE. C.V., Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs-Below, Appellants,

v.

PAUL V. FACCHINA, SR., individually and as Sellers' Representative, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant-Below, Appellee.

No. 434, 2020

Supreme Court of Delaware

January 22, 2021

Submitted: January 19, 2021

Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware C. A. No. N17C-09-163

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.

ORDER

Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice

Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellants' response, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On December 21, 2020, the appellants, ICATECH Corporation and Empresas ICA, S.A.B. De. C.V. (collectively, "ICATech"), filed a notice of appeal from the Superior Court's post-trial opinion, dated October 29, 2020, and final order and judgment, dated November 24, 2020. That same day, ICATech filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs and the appellee, Paul V. Facchina, Sr. ("the Seller Representative"), filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the Superior Court.

(2) On January 7, 2021, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing ICATech to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order. In the response to the notice to show cause, ICATech emphasizes that the November 24, 2020 order was captioned "Final Order and Judgment," but acknowledges that the order directed the parties to brief their entitlement to, and the amount of, any fees and costs and that this Court is likely to find the appeal interlocutory. The Seller Representative's position is that this appeal is interlocutory.

(3) After careful consideration of the response to the notice to show cause, we conclude that this appeal must be dismissed as interlocutory. Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42 ("Rule 42"), this Court is limited to the review of a trial court's final judgment.1 An order is deemed final and appealable if the trial court has declared its intention that the order be the court's final act in disposing of all justiciable matters within its jurisdiction.[2] A judgment is not final and appealable when there is an outstanding application for attorneys' fees.3

(4) Applications for attorneys' fees are currently pending in the Superior Court. This appeal is...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP