Full Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOSEPH D. BRUNO, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N26A-08-004 CEB ) UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, ) On Appeal from CPU4-26-000996 ) in the Court of Common Pleas of Appellee. ) the State of Delaware Submitted: September 30, 2026 Decided: October 5, 2026 ORDER 1. Appellant Joseph Bruno filed an appeal of a decision of the Court of Comon Pleas. The Court of Common Pleas ruled that Bruno had accepted a settlement of his dispute with the University of Delaware when the litigation was first filed in the Justice of the Peace Court.1 The Court of Common Pleas action was essentially the University’s effort to enforce the settlement agreement previously reached. In its Opinion and Order, the Court detailed an extensive colloquy with Bruno, the tenor of which was that Bruno would neither confirm nor disavow the 1 Joseph D. Bruno v. Univ. of Delaware, Del. CCP, C.A. No.: CPU4-26-000996, Mayer, J. (July 1, 2026) (Appellee’s Mot. to Dismiss, D.I. 6, Ex. A.). settlement with the University.2 The Court ultimately concluded that a settlement had been reached and repudiating Bruno’s efforts to demand more or different terms in the settlement.3 2. At the conclusion of its Opinion, the Court ruled that “the University may file a Motion for Attorney’s Fees, together with a time sheet and affidavit of attorney’s fees.”4 3. After Bruno filed his appeal in this Court,5 the University moved to dismiss the appeal on grounds it is interlocutory in light of the open attorney fee question in the Court of Common Pleas.6 Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1326(a), this Court has appellate jurisdiction to review only “final orders” of the Court of Common Pleas. 5. Bruno’s arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, resolution of this question is foreclosed by the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Vanella v. Duran.7 In that case, the Supreme Courft ruled that an open dispute over attorney fees is not a “ministerial act” like a motion for costs and therefore the ruling is not 2 Id. at 6-8. 3 Id. at 13. 4 Id. at n.14. 5 D.I. 1. 6 Appellee’s Mot. to Dismiss, D.I. 6. 7 339 A.3d 1228 (Del. 2025). 2 final until the attorney fees question is resolved.8 This is all the more so in this case, in which the Court explicitly stated that it will consider an offset to the final judgment to compensate the University for its attorney fees in responding to Bruno’s pleadings. 6. Plaintiff’s appeal is therefore DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Charles E. Butler Charles E. Butler, Resident Judge cc: Joseph D. Bruno Counsel of record via File & ServeXpress 8 Id. (“[A] pending motion for attorney fees renders an appeal interlocutory because the court must exercise its discretion when fashioning an appropriate award.”) (citation omitted). 3