McDaniel v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

860 A.2d 321 (Del. 2004) · Supreme Court of Delaware · October 26, 2004 · No. No. 214, 2004

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court addresses an appeal from summary judgment and the denial of a motion for reargument. It holds that a pending motion for costs did not delay finality, the motion for reargument was untimely under Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e), and the appeal from the summary judgment was therefore jurisdictionally barred. The court dismissed that portion of the appeal and affirmed the denial of reargument.

Court
Supreme Court of Delaware
Writing for the Court
Holland, Justice; Steele, Chief Justice; Berger, Justice
Jurisdiction
Delaware
Decision date
October 26, 2004
Docket number
No. 214, 2004
Procedural posture
McDaniel appealed from the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment to DaimlerChrysler and denial of her motion for reargument. DaimlerChrysler moved to dismiss the appeal from the summary judgment ruling and affirm the denial of reargument.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court reviewed its appellate jurisdiction de novo and reviewed the denial of the motion for reargument for abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Published Delaware Supreme Court opinion
Parties
Carol McDaniel v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate jurisdictionfinal judgment rulemotion for reconsiderationappellate proceduresummary judgment

Practice areas

civil procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a pending motion for costs delays the finality of a judgment on the merits and tolls the time for appeal.
  2. Whether a motion for reargument is timely when filed more than five days after the filing of the court's decision because the decision was mailed to the parties.
  3. Whether the Delaware Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the untimely appeal from the Superior Court's summary judgment order.
  4. Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion in denying McDaniel's untimely motion for reargument.

Holdings

  1. A pending motion for costs alone does not delay the finality of a judgment on the merits.
  2. A motion for reargument delays the finality of a judgment and tolls the appeal period only if it is timely filed.
  3. The five-day period for filing a motion for reargument cannot be extended by three additional days merely because the court's decision was mailed to the parties.
  4. The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to consider McDaniel's untimely appeal from the February 5 summary judgment ruling.
  5. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in denying McDaniel's untimely motion for reargument.

Key quotations

The reargument period cannot be enlarged. (323)
This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider McDaniel's untimely appeal from the February 5 summary judgment ruling. (323)
The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in denying her untimely motion for reargument. (323)

Factual background

The Superior Court entered summary judgment for DaimlerChrysler on February 5, 2004. McDaniel filed her motion for reargument on February 18, 2004, arguing that the five-day filing period should be extended by three days because the decision was mailed to counsel. She also argued that the summary judgment order did not become final until the court ruled on DaimlerChrysler's motion for costs.

Procedural history

The Superior Court granted DaimlerChrysler summary judgment on February 5, 2004. McDaniel filed a motion for reargument on February 18, 2004, which the Superior Court denied on April 26, 2004 as untimely and without merit. McDaniel filed her appeal on May 20, 2004. The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the appeal from the summary judgment ruling for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the denial of reargument.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…