Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, L.L.C.
| Decision Date | 28 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 1 CA–CV 16–0294 (Consolidated),No. 1 CA–CV 15–0107 (Consolidated),No. 1 CA–CV 15–0508 (Consolidated),No. 1 CA–CV 15–0249 (Consolidated),No. 1 CA–CV 15–0753 (Consolidated),No. 1 CA–CV 15–0624 (Consolidated),No. 1 CA–CV 15–0127 (Consolidated),No. 1 CA–CV 15–0689 (Consolidated),No. 1 CA–CV 15–0728 (Consolidated),No. 1 CA–CV 15–0047 (Consolidated),No. 1 CA–CV 15–0513 (Consolidated),No. 1 CA–CV 15–0375 (Consolidated),1 CA–CV 15–0047 (Consolidated),1 CA–CV 15–0107 (Consolidated),1 CA–CV 15–0127 (Consolidated),1 CA–CV 15–0249 (Consolidated),1 CA–CV 15–0375 (Consolidated),1 CA–CV 15–0508 (Consolidated),1 CA–CV 15–0513 (Consolidated),1 CA–CV 15–0624 (Consolidated),1 CA–CV 15–0689 (Consolidated),1 CA–CV 15–0728 (Consolidated),1 CA–CV 15–0753 (Consolidated),1 CA–CV 16–0294 (Consolidated) |
| Citation | 380 P.3d 659,240 Ariz. 420 |
| Parties | Billy Brumett, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. MGA Home Healthcare, L.L.C., et al., Defendants/Appellants. Rachel A. Turley, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Leo R. Beus, et al., Defendants/Appellants. Perry Boser, individually and on behalf of Theresa Dannielle Boser, deceased, and on behalf of all statutory beneficiaries, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Jason Lee Ware, Defendant/Appellant. Vance S. Taylor; Candy R. Overley, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Bucks Financial, LLC, Defendant/Appellee. Double AA Builders, Ltd., an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Company, LLC, a Montana company, Defendant/Appellant. David Romero, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Khalid S. Hasan, et al., Defendants/Appellees. Riverbend Homeowners Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Felicia Edwards, Defendant/Appellee. Banner Health Systems, Garnishee/Appellee. Isaac Bonelli, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Carol Olson, Defendant/Appellee. Robert Angelo, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Stewart Title & Trust of Phoenix, Inc., Defendant/Appellee. In the Matter of the Estate of: Michele E. Davis, Deceased. Steve Erlick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michele E. Davis, Petitioner/Appellee, v. John Davis, Respondent/Appellant. AEA Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Yuma Funding, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Defendant/Appellant. ABC Sand and Rock Company, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Defendant/Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Johnson & Gregory PLLC, Mesa, By W. Raymond Johnson, III, Robert M. Gregory, Tyler M. Sorensen, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees Billy Brumett, et al.
Broening Oberg Woods & Wilson PC, Phoenix, By James R. Broening, T. Scott King, Michelle L. Donovan, Kevin R. Myer, Counsel for Defendants/Appellants MGA Home Healthcare, L.L.C., et al.
Bryan Cave LLP, Phoenix, By J. Alex Grimsley, Robert J. Miller, Sean K. McElenney, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees Rachel A. Turley, et al.
Osborn Maledon P.A., Phoenix, By David B. Rosenbaum, Nathan T. Arrowsmith, Moyes Sellers and Hendricks, LTD., Phoenix, By Keith L. Hendricks, Joshua T. Greer, Co–Counsel for Defendants/Appellants Leo R. Beus, et al.
Goldberg & Osborne, Phoenix, By Allen D. Bucknell, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Perry Boser.
Jason Lee Ware, Tucson, Defendant/Appellant.
Vance Taylor and Candy Overley, Glendale, AZ, Plaintiffs/Appellants.
Law Offices of Michelle Ghidotti, Anaheim Hills, CA, By Michelle R. Ghidotti Gonsalves, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Bucks Financial, LLC.
Holden Willits PLC, Phoenix, By Michael J. Holden, Barry A. Willits, R. Stewart Halstead, Nelson A. F., Mixon, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Double AA Builders, Ltd.
Broening Oberg Woods & Wilson, PC, Phoenix, By Robert T. Sullivan, Alicyn M. Freeman, Kevin R. Myer, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant Preferred Contractors Insurance Company, LLC.
David Romero, Queen Creek, Plaintiff/Appellant.
Holden & Armer P.C., Phoenix, By Scott A. Holden, Carolyn (DeeDee) Armer Holden, Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Khalid S. Hasan, et al.
Vial Fotheringham, LLP, Tempe, By Quinten T. Cupps, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Riverbend Homeowners Association.
Isaac Bonelli, Phoenix, Plaintiff/Appellant.
Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen PLC, Tempe, By Mark A. Holmgren, Armistead W. Gilliam, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants Robert Angelo, et al.
Burch & Cracchiolo PA, Phoenix, By Jake D. Curtis, Edwin D. Fleming, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, By Gerard D. Kelly, Kevin M. Fee, Daniel C. Craig, Co–Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Stewart Title & Trust of Phoenix, Inc.
Kile & Kupiszewski Law Firm LLC, Scottsdale, By Stephen J.P. Kupiszewski, Christina M. Stoneking, Jennifer L. Kupiszewski Emily B. Kile, Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Steve Erlick.
John Davis, Phoenix, Respondent/Appellant.
Law Office of Larry W. Suciu, Yuma, By Barry L. Olsen, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Yuma Funding, Inc.
Schneider & Onofry PC, Yuma, By Jason M. Kelly, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant.
Osborn Maledon PA, Phoenix, By Colin F. Campbell, Meghan Grabel, Jana Lynn Sutton, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant ABC Sand and Rock Company, Inc.
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Phoenix, By Stephen W. Tully, Bradley L. Dunn, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Flood Control District of Maricopa County.
¶ 1 By statute, an appeal may be taken from "a final judgment entered in an action." A.R.S. § 12–2101(A)(1) (2016).1 Consistent with this directive, the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure describe two types of "final judgments:" (1) a "final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties," Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(b), and (2) a final judgment on "all claims and parties," Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(c). The former is appealable "only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment." Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The latter is appealable when "the court states that no further matters remain pending and that the judgment is entered pursuant to Rule 54(c)." Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(c); see also Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.–Chandler, L.L.C. , 236 Ariz. 221, 223–24 ¶ 5, 338 P.3d 328 (App. 2014) ().2
¶ 2 Other statutes, however, authorize appeals of various rulings that are not "final judgments" under A.R.S. § 12–2101(A)(1). The appeals consolidated here involve claims of appellate jurisdiction other than A.R.S. § 12–2101(A)(1), either under a different subsection of A.R.S. § 12–2101(A) or a different statute. See, e.g., A.R.S. § 12–913 (); A.R.S. § 12–1873(A) (); A.R.S. § 12–2101.01 (). The issue is whether such rulings may be appealed to this court even though they are not "final judgments" and are not entered under Rule 54(b) or 54(c).
¶ 3 Although Rule 54(b) has been in place for decades, Rule 54(c) was added effective January 1, 2014. Because no opinion discusses whether a Rule 54(c) declaration is necessary when a statute other than A.R.S. § 12–2101(A)(1) provides the basis for appellate jurisdiction, these appeals have been consolidated sua sponte for the limited purpose of addressing whether this court has appellate jurisdiction in these appeals. See Sorensen v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 191 Ariz. 464, 465, 957 P.2d 1007 (App. 1997) ().3
¶ 4 This court's appellate jurisdiction is defined, and limited, by the Legislature. See, e.g. , Ariz. Const. art. 6 § 9 (); Garza v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc. , 222 Ariz. 281, 283 ¶ 12, 213 P.3d 1008 (2009) () (citation omitted). Under A.R.S. § 12–2101(A)(1), the Legislature has directed that a "final judgment" is appealable. Given this directive, Arizona courts repeatedly have found that a judgment must be final before it can be appealed pursuant to A.R.S. § 12–2101(A)(1). See, e.g., Bollermann v. Nowlis , 234 Ariz. 340, 341 ¶ 6, 322 P.3d 157 (2014) ; Musa v. Adrian , 130 Ariz. 311, 312, 636 P.2d 89 (1981) ; In re Marriage of Johnson & Gravino , 231 Ariz. 228, 230 ¶ 5, 293 P.3d 504 (App. 2012). The Arizona Supreme Court has promulgated two procedural rules to define what constitutes an appealable "final judgment."
¶ 5 Rule 54(b) provides that a superior court may "direct the entry of final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties" in a case "upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of [a final] judgment." Promulgated in 1961, Rule 54(b) affords a superior court discretion to determine whether a ruling that resolves less than all claims as to all parties should be deemed a "final judgment," and therefore appealable. S. California Edison Co. v. Peabody W. Coal Co. , 194 Ariz. 47, 53 ¶ 19, 977 P.2d 769 (1999) ; Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(b) State Bar Committee Notes 1961 Amendment.
¶ 6 Rule 54(c) provides that "[a] judgment shall not be final unless the court states that no further matters remain pending and that the judgment is entered pursuant to Rule 54(c)." Promulgated effective January 1, 2014, Rule 54(c) is designed to make clear "whether an order of a Superior Court is, or is intended to be, a final, appealable ‘judgment’ " and to facilitate "determining the extent to which a putative judgment resolves a case as to all claims and all parties." Madrid , 236 Ariz. at 223 ¶ 4, 338 P.3d 328. The inclusion of Rule 54(c) language does not render an otherwise non-appealable order or judgment appealable as a final judgment. See id. at 224 ¶ 6, 338 P.3d 328 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heredia v. Heredia
...Rule 54(c) does not apply in matters governed by the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure. See Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, L.L.C., 240 Ariz. 421, n.4, 380 P.3d 659, 665 n.4 (App. 2016). Accordingly, on August 22, 2016, we vacated our December 2015 order. 3. Section 12-349(B) allows the......
-
Sec. Alarm Fin. Enters., L.P. v. Fuller, 1 CA-CV 16-0255
...speaking, an order denying a motion to dismiss is not reviewable by appeal because it is not a final judgment. See Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, L.L.C. , 240 Ariz. 420, 426, ¶ 4, 380 P.3d 659, 665 (App. 2016).¶ 5 Appellants, however, suggest Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 12–......
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Dodev, 1 CA-CV 17-0652
...Care PC , 245 Ariz. 35, 37, ¶ 9, 424 P.3d 436, 438 (App. 2018) (recognizing exceptions to the general rule); Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, L.L.C. , 240 Ariz. 420, 432, ¶ 32, 380 P.3d 659, 671 (App. 2016) (citing cases). Accordingly, the superior court had jurisdiction to hear the current ......
-
Chung v. Choulet
...(order granting a motion to set aside a default judgment is appealable as a special order made after judgment); Brummet v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC , 240 Ariz. 420, 429–30, ¶¶ 14–15, 380 P.3d 659 (App. 2016).DISCUSSIONI. The Choulets’ Appeal ¶8 The Choulets contend the superior court erred ......