Court of Civil Appeals Addresses Exceptions to Final Judgment Rule and Deficiencies in Notice of Appeal
In McGough, the plaintiffs brought an action under the Dram Shop Act seeking to recover from G&A, Inc., d/b/a the Cajun Grille, and others for the death of their son. When the trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, two other motions remained pending: a motion for contempt and a motion to award attorneys' fees pursuant to the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act ("the ALAA").
In considering its appellate jurisdiction, the court noted the general rule that a judgment is only final if it disposes of all the claims pending in the trial court. Both motions pending at the time the summary judgment was entered in this case, however, fell under an exception to the general rule. The pendency of a contempt motion does not render a judgment nonfinal. In addition, the failure of a trial court to specifically reserve jurisdiction over an ALAA claim in a summary-judgment order impliedly disposes of that claim. Therefore, the summary judgment appealed from was final even though two claims remained pending in the trial court.
The court next considered an irregularity in the appellants' notice of appeal. Although Cajun Grille, L.L.C. was voluntarily dismissed at the trial court level, the notice of appeal named "Cajun Grille, L.L.C. et al." as the appellees. The summary judgment from which the appeal was taken was entered in favor of the remaining appellees, none of whom were specifically named in the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal, however, did specify that the appeal was taken from the only summary judgment entered in the case. In addition, it was served upon the attorney for all of the remaining defendants.
The court concluded that the irregularities in the notice of appeal did not amount to a significant defect that rendered the appeal a nullity. Although dicta in several of the cases cited suggested that a notice of appeal from a judgment in favor of two or more parties must specifically name each party whose judgment the appellant wishes to overturn, at least two supreme court cases have clarified that no specific designation of every appellee is necessary so long as the appellant specifies the judgment from which he or she is appealing. In addition, the supreme court has further held that the failure to designate a prevailing defendant as an appellee would be excused when the notice specified the judgment appealed from and appellant's counsel properly served the notice of appeal on counsel for the unnamed appellee.
Following this logic, the court held that the irregularities did not amount to a significant defect. The appellants specified the judgment from which they were appealing and properly served counsel representing all the named defendants. In addition, a brief was filed on behalf of all the appellees. Thus, the technical error did not prejudice the appellees in any substantive manner and the merits of the appeal could be considered.
