 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Limehouse v. Steak & Ale Restaurant Corp.6/7/2004
Submitted: April 30, 2004
ORDER
This 7th day of June 2004, upon consideration of the opening brief, the appellee's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to affirm, and the appellant's response to the motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The plaintiff below, Keith D. Limehouse, filed this appeal from a decision of the Superior Court dated February 5, 2004. The Superior Court's order granted, in part, the defendants' (collectively referred to as "Steak & Ale") motion to dismiss Limehouse's complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the ground that Limehouse's personal injury complaint was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. The Superior Court's order denied, in part, Steak & Ale's motion to dismiss to the extent Limehouse's complaint asserted a claim for wrongful termination.
(2) Steak & Ale filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the Superior Court's order is interlocutory and Limehouse has failed to comply with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42 in seeking to take an appeal from an interlocutory order. Steak & Ale asserts that Limehouse's claim for wrongful termination is still pending before the Superior Court, therefore, the February 5th order was not the trial court's final act in the case. Limehouse filed a response to the motion to dismiss. He contends that his complaint did not assert a claim for wrongful termination and, therefore, there is nothing pending before the Superior Court for further consideration.
(3) The record reflects that Limehouse, without the aid of legal counsel, filed his amended complaint in the Superior Court on August 29, 2003. The complaint specifies only one count, namely, a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. In construing Limehouse's complaint to also set forth a claim for wrongful termination, it appears that the Superior Court was attempting to afford the pro se plaintiff some degree of leniency in permitting his complaint to move forward. Given Limehouse's unequivocal expression of his intent neither to plead nor pursue a claim for wrongful termination, however, we can only conclude that the Superior Court's dismissal of Limehouse's complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress resolved the only claim pending before it and, therefore, constitutes a final, appealable order. Steak & Ale's motion to dismiss on the ground that the appeal is interlocutory, therefore, is denied.
(4) We now consider the merits of Steak & Ale's motion to affirm the Superior Court's judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Limehouse's opening brief that the appeal is without merit. In his opening brief, Limehouse raises three issues: (a) the trial judge was biased; (b) the Superior Court erred in dismissing his claim because it fell within the personal dispute exception to the exclusivity provision of the Worker's Compensation Act; and (c) the Superior Court erred in dismissing his claim because he was entitled to pursue the claim as a matter of law under 10 Del. C. ยงยง 541, 541 and 3704. We find no merit to any of these claims. Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court's judgment.
(5) The record reflects that Limehouse filed a motion for default judgment on his complaint, which the Superior Court denied. After his motion was denied, Limehouse filed a federal lawsuit against Steak & Ale's counsel and the trial judge, as well as other State employees, alleging a conspiracy against Limehouse to violate his civil rights, which purportedly related to the denial of Limehouse's motion for default judgment. After filing his federal lawsuit, Limehouse
Page 1 2 Delaware Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|