Layne ( 2015 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
SHAWANA LAYNE (f/k/a Shawana §
Singleton) as guardian ad litem and next §
friend to FRANK LEE LAYNE, JR., § No. 414, 2015
§
Plaintiff Below- §
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware,
§ in and for New Castle County
GAVILON GRAIN, LLC (d/b/a Peavey § C.A. No. N12C-12-057
Company), and JAIR CABRERA, §
§
Defendants Below- §
Appellees. §
Submitted: August 17, 2015
Decided: August 27, 2015
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 27th day of August 2015, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The plaintiff-appellant, Shawana Layne as guardian ad litem
and next friend to Frank Lee Layne, Jr. (“Layne”), has petitioned this Court
under Supreme Court Rule 42 to accept an appeal from an interlocutory
order of the Superior Court dated July 10, 2015, granting a motion for
summary judgment filed by Gavilon Grain, LLC (“Gavilon”) and Jair
Cabrera. The Superior Court’s opinion determined that Layne was a special
employee of Gavilon and, therefore, Layne’s personal injury claims were
barred by the exclusivity provision of the Delaware Workers’ Compensation
Act.
(2) Layne filed the application for certification to take an
interlocutory appeal in the Superior Court on July 17, 2015. The Superior
Court denied the certification application on August 13, 2015. Although the
Superior Court analyzed Layne’s application for certification under the
former version of Supreme Court Rule 42, which was amended effective
May 15, 2015, it engaged in a thoughtful analysis under the old version that
remains relevant and we agree with its recommendation that certification
should be denied. As the Superior Court noted, its determination that Layne
was a special employee of Gavilon applied legal tests that are set out in prior
decisions of this Court.1 Moreover, interlocutory review of the Superior
Court’s ruling will not substantially reduce the pending litigation or
otherwise serve the considerations of justice.2
(3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the
sound discretion of this Court. In the exercise of its discretion, this Court
1
See Porter v. Pathfinder Services, Inc., 683 A.2d 40 (Del. 1996); Lester C. Newton
Trucking Co. v. Neal, 204 A.2d 393 (Del. 1964).
2
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii)(G)-(H) (effective May 15, 2015).
2
has concluded that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the
requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.3
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
3
The Court is issuing a contemporaneous order refusing the interlocutory appeal filed in
a companion case, Discover Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gavilon Grain, LLC, No. 421, 2015.
3