Anderson, Alicia v. Planet Fitness Wilmington

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ALICIA ANDERSON, §
§ No. 75, 2026
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ C.A. No. N25C-01-555
PLANET FITNESS §
WILMINGTON, §
§
Defendant Below, §
Appellee. §

Submitted: March 12, 2026
Decided: March 16, 2026

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

(1) On February 17, 2026, the appellant filed a notice of appeal from a

Superior Court letter order that was dated and docketed on January 7, 2026. Under

Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed, at the latest,

by February 6, 2026.1 The Senior Court Clerk of this Court issued a notice directing

the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely

filed. In response to the notice, the appellant asserts that the Superior Court docket

1
See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 6(a)(i) (providing that a notice of appeal in a civil case shall be filed
“[w]ithin 30 days after entry upon the docket of a judgment, order or decree from which the appeal
is taken”).
does not reflect that the case has been dismissed and that a poor or homeless person

cannot achieve justice in the court system.2

(2) Timely filing is a jurisdictional requirement.3 A notice of appeal must

be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period

to be effective.4 An appellant’s status as a self-represented litigant does not excuse

a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements.5 Unless an appellant

can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to

court-related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered.6

(3) The appellant’s arguments about the Superior Court docket and her

indigency do not demonstrate that the untimely filing is attributable to court-related

personnel.7 The courts have rules that authorize indigent litigants to initiate or

2
The appellant also asserts that the Court of Common Pleas informed her “on the record” that,
“even if an answer is filed untimely,” the document would be accepted and the Supreme Court
would rule. This case appears to have originated in the Superior Court, so it is unclear what
relevance the Court of Common Pleas has to the matter. In addition, this Court’s Clerk’s office
accepted the appellant’s untimely notice of appeal, and the Court has given her an opportunity to
demonstrate why the appeal should not be dismissed for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction over
untimely filed appeals.
3
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).
4
DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a).
5
Rogers v. Morgan, 2019 WL 168667 (Del. Jan. 10, 2019).
6
Id. (citing Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979)).
7
See Brousell v. Del. Bd. of Mental Health & Chem. Dependency Professionals, 2022 WL 552663
(Del. Feb. 23, 2022) (dismissing untimely appeal and stating that the appellant’s inability to afford
counsel or to pay the appeal filing fee did not show that untimeliness was attributable to court-
related personnel).

2
otherwise participate in court proceedings without the prepayment of filing fees.8

The appeal must be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Chief Justice

8
Id.

3