From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

SEA WATCH INTERNAT'L v. MORRISON

Superior Court of Delaware, Sussex County
Oct 20, 2011
C.A. No. S11A-03-003 RFS (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 20, 2011)

Opinion

C.A. No. S11A-03-003 RFS.

October 20, 2011.


This 20th day of October 2011, it appears to the Court that:

1. Sea Watch International, Ltd. ("Sea Watch") filed an appeal of a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board") granting unemployment benefits to Dana Morrison ("Morrison") for a time specified by the Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment; and

2. Morrison failed to file an answering brief in compliance with the scheduling order; and

3. Morrison did not respond to the final delinquent notice; and

4. Morrison was given an extension of time and notice that failure to file an answering brief by a date certain would result in Sea Watch's appeal being granted without further notice; and

5. Morrison did not file an answering brief despite multiple opportunities to do so; and

6. When a party makes no filing, showing or explanation of any kind, the Court must maintain its neutrality and will not advocate that party's position sua sponte; and

Sprung v. Selbyville Cleaners, 2007 WL 1218683 (Del. Super.).

7. This Court has previously found that even where an appeal may not have been granted if the opposing party had complied with Super. Ct. Civ. R. 107, a board decision may be reversed because of the appellee's "failure to diligently prosecute and file its brief pursuant to Rule 107(e)"; and

Crews v. Sears Roebuck Co., 2011 WL 2083880, *3 (quoting Hunter v. First USA/Bank One, 2004 838715, *5 (Del. Super.)).

8. Morrison's failure to file an answering brief is a violation of Super. Ct. Civ. R. 107(e); and

Elder v. Careers USA, 2011 WL 3081437, *1 (Del. Super.).

9. As stated, Morrison received notice of the time to file an answering brief. He also received a final delinquent notice. Despite his continued silence, he was given an extension of time. No answering brief was filed. Morrison now stands in procedural default.

Byrd v. Westoff USA, Inc., 2011 WL 3275156, *2 (Del. Super.).

Therefore, Sea Watch's appeal is GRANTED, and the Board's decision is REVERSED. The cause is remanded to the Board for action in accordance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

SEA WATCH INTERNAT'L v. MORRISON

Superior Court of Delaware, Sussex County
Oct 20, 2011
C.A. No. S11A-03-003 RFS (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 20, 2011)
Case details for

SEA WATCH INTERNAT'L v. MORRISON

Case Details

Full title:SEA WATCH INTERNAT'L, LTD., Appellant v. DANA MORRISON AND THE…

Court:Superior Court of Delaware, Sussex County

Date published: Oct 20, 2011

Citations

C.A. No. S11A-03-003 RFS (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 20, 2011)