O'Conner v. Robinson

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CYNTHIA O’CONNER, * §
§ No. 698, 2014
Petitioner Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below: Family Court of
§ the State of Delaware in and for
v. § New Castle County
§
DARRYL J. ROBINSON, § File No. CN09-04138
§ Pet. No. 14-26120
Respondent Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: May 12, 2015
Decided: May 20, 2015
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and VAUGHN, Justices
ORDER
This 20th day of May 2015, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On March 9, 2015, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice
directing the appellant, Cynthia O’Conner, to show cause why this appeal
should not be dismissed for her failure to pay the Family Court filing fee.
The notice to show cause was sent by certified mail to the address that
O’Conner provided to the Court, and a copy of the notice was sent by first
class mail. When O’Conner did not respond to the March 9 notice to show
*
By Order dated December 23, 2014, the Court assigned pseudonyms to the parties. Del.
Supr. Ct. R. 7(d).
cause and did not pay the fee, the Court dismissed the appeal by Order dated
March 24, 2015.
(2) O’Conner moved to reargue the dismissal of the appeal on the
basis that she had not received the March 9 notice to show cause. When
reviewing O’Conner’s motion for reargument, it became apparent to the
Court that O’Conner had filed the appeal from the Family Court’s interim
order dated December 9, 2014, denying her motion for priority scheduling of
an underlying petition for parental visitation. Supreme Court Rule 42
governs interlocutory appeals, i.e., appeals from interim, non-final orders.
Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the Court’s jurisdiction is
limited to the review of final judgments and orders.
(3) On April 2, 2015, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice
directing O’Conner to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed
for her failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal
from an apparent interlocutory order. The Chief Deputy Clerk advised
O’Conner that the Court would hold her motion for reargument of the March
24 dismissal of the appeal in abeyance pending her response to the April 2
notice to show cause.
(4) The April 2 notice to show cause was sent by certified mail to
the address provided by O’Conner. When O’Conner did not respond to the
2
notice sent by certified mail, the Chief Deputy Clerk sent a copy of the
notice to O’Conner by first class mail.
(5) O’Conner has not responded to the April 2 notice to show
cause. The Court concludes that, in the absence of O’Conner’s compliance
with Supreme Court Rule 42, this appeal must be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules
29(b) and 42, that the appeal is DISMISSED. O’Conner’s motion for
reargument is moot.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
3