Background
Project Labrador Holdco, LLC appealed after the Delaware Superior Court granted Bakkt Opco Holdings, LLC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on June 12, 2026, and denied Project Labrador’s motion for reargument on July 7. Project Labrador filed its notice of appeal on August 6.
That same day, Bakkt moved in the Superior Court for attorney fees and costs. Because that motion remained pending, the Senior Court Clerk directed Project Labrador to show cause why its appeal should not be dismissed as interlocutory for failure to comply with Delaware Supreme Court Rule 42. Project Labrador responded that it had appealed out of an abundance of caution and requested that, if the appeal were dismissed, its filing fee be credited toward a future appeal from a final judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the appeal under Supreme Court Rule 29(b). The court explained that, absent compliance with Rule 42, its appellate jurisdiction is limited to final judgments—generally, decisions that resolve the merits or the parties’ rights and leave nothing for future determination.
Because Bakkt’s motion for attorney fees and costs remained unresolved, the Superior Court’s decision was not final. Project Labrador acknowledged that its appeal was interlocutory and that it had not complied with Rule 42. The Supreme Court therefore lacked a basis to review the appeal at this stage, but ordered that Project Labrador’s filing fee be applied to any future appeal it files from a final order in the case.
Key Takeaways
- An unresolved motion for attorney fees and costs can prevent a Delaware trial-court ruling from constituting a final, appealable judgment.
- A party seeking immediate review of an interlocutory ruling must comply with Delaware Supreme Court Rule 42.
- The court dismissed the premature appeal but preserved the appellant’s filing fee for a future appeal from a final order.
Why It Matters
The order underscores the importance of confirming that all matters—including pending fee and cost requests—have been resolved before filing a final-judgment appeal in Delaware. Filing a protective notice of appeal does not substitute for satisfying Rule 42’s requirements for interlocutory review.