Alabama Appellate Watch : Alabama Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Lightfoot Franklin & White : Appellate, Alabama Supreme Court (Supreme Court of Alabama)

The trial court granted summary judgment against Alfa on Alfa's complaint seeking a declaration regarding its right and liabilities under an insurace policy. The trial court denied summary judgment on one of the issues.  The trial court certified its order as final under Rule 54(b).  Alfa appealed, and the insured cross-appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgmt on the remaining issue.

The Supreme Court reviewed its jurisdiction ex mero motu, and dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal after it determined that it did not have jurisdiction because the Rule 54(b) certification was improper.

The Supreme Court noted that a Rule 54(b) certification may be proper if the order completely disposed of one of a number of claims or completely disposed of all claims against one party.  The claim at issue in this case was a declaratory judgment to decide rights under an insurance policy.  Even though there were several issues raised in the claim for declaratory judgment action, it was still one "claim" for a declaratory judgment.  The fact that the trial court granted summary judgment on some of the grounds asserted for the declaratory judgment did not completely dispose of a "claim," and therefore certification was improper.

Further, the cross-appeal was due to be dismissed.  The denial of a summary judgment is an interlocutory order, and will not support an appeal.

The plaintiff sued her employer for retaliatory discharge. She then amended her complaint to add the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations (ADIR) in order to appeal the agency’s denial of unemployment benefits. ADIR and the employer moved to sever the claims and to assign the benefits appeal a new case number. The trial court granted this motion by severing the claims “in part.” The court did not, however, assign the benefits appeal a new case number.

The trial court eventually granted ADIR summary judgment on the benefits claim, and the plaintiff appealed.

On its own motion, the Court of Civil Appeals held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction. Because the summary judgment had adjudicated only the benefits claim, while leaving the discharge claim pending, the judgment was not “final” and would not support an appeal. Because the lower court had not assigned a new case number to the benefits claim, it was “obvious” that court had “intended only to separate the claims for trial purposes.” The lower court, “under these circumstances,” had effected a “separation” under Rule 42(b) but not a “severance” under Rule 21. The appellate court concluded:

When a court merely orders separate trials, an adjudication of one claim, via a summary-judgment order, does not become a final judgment unless the order is properly certified as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.

The trial court had not certified the judgment as final under Rule 54(b). The Court of Civil Appeals thus dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

In Hammock, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death suit against Wal-Mart and one of its employees after the plaintiff's decedent was killed by the Wal-Mart employee when the employee struck the decedent with his car while returning from lunch.  The plaintiff asserted claims against Wal-Mart based on respondeat superior and also alleged that Wal-Mart was negligent in maintaining the parking lot and training its employees.  The trial court granted summary judgment to Wal-Mart on the respondeat superior claims on  the basis that the accident did not occur in the course and scope of his duties for Wal-Mart.  The other claims against Wal-Mart remained pending, as did the claims against the employee.  The trial court certified the order granting summary judgment to Wal-Mart on the respondeat superior claims as final pursuant to Rule 54(b).

On appeal the Supreme Court, on its own, examined whether it had jurisdiction over the appeal.  Quoting extensively from North Alabama Elec. Coop. v. New Hop Tel, Coop., [Ms. 1051800] (Ala. Oct. 17, 2008), the Court stated the rule that Rule 54(b) certifications are not favored, and are inappropriate where the claims are intertwined.

The Court found that the respondeat superior claim and the remaining claim for negligenet training and supervion were intertwined because they share common elements.  "Like a claim of respondeat superior, liability under a theory of negligent supervision is based in the employment relationship.  The trial court ruled on Hammock's respondeat superior claim, determining that [employee] was not acting within the line and scope of her employment when she struck and killed [decedent].  As a result, a separate adjudication by the trial court on negligent supervision and training leaves open the possibility of 'inconsistent results.'"

Because the claims were intertwined, the Rule 54(b) certification was improper, and the appeal was dismissed.

The parties to this case had a bench trial regarding the possession of two Tennessee Walking Horses.  One of the defenses raised to the suit was that the defendant was justified in retaining the horses pursuant to a statutory lien.  Further, the defendant raised other counterclaims.

After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiff.  However, the judgment did not address the counterclaims.  Therefore, the judgment was not final, and the appeal had to be dismissed.

Interestingly, not all the pending counterclaims impacted the finality of judgment.  The defendant filed a counterclaim asserting defamation.  However, at trial, the defendant put forth no evidence at trial in support of the claim.  The court cited precedent holding that the presence of claims for which no argument or evidence is presented does not prevent the finality of judgment on the disposed claims.

The court found that the remaining counterclaims were intertwined with the judgment at issue.  Therefore, the court could not simply remand the order for Rule 54(b) certification and, instead, was required to dismiss the appeal.