Pike v. Reed
Citation | 3 So.3d 201 |
Decision Date | 25 July 2008 |
Docket Number | 2070542.,2070410 |
Parties | Linda PIKE v. Brenda REED. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Patrick O. Miller of Dick Riggs Miller LLP, Huntsville, for appellant.
Jay E. Emerson, Jr., and Robert D. Lee of Higgs & Emerson, Huntsville, for appellee.
In these consolidated appeals, the defendant, Linda Pike, appeals a partial summary judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, Brenda Reed. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeals.
The record contains no indication that a hearing was ever held regarding a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. On October 9, 2007, Pike moved the trial court for a summary judgment in her favor. On October 12, 2007, Reed moved the trial court for a partial summary judgment with respect to the issue of liability; however, her motion did not seek a determination regarding the relief to which she was allegedly entitled. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an interlocutory order on November 5, 2007 ("the November 5 order"), denying Pike's motion for a summary judgment and granting Reed's motion for a partial summary judgment with respect to the issue of liability. The November 5 order did not purport to determine the relief to which Reed was entitled.
On December 5, 2007, Pike moved the trial court to alter, amend, or vacate the November 5 order; the trial court denied that motion on December 20, 2007. On January 28, 2008, the parties jointly moved the trial court to certify the November 5 order as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. However, on January 31, 2008, before the trial court had ruled on the joint motion seeking certification of the November 5 order as a final judgment, Pike filed a notice of appeal to this court. We docketed that appeal ("the first appeal") as appeal no. 2070410. Thereafter, we determined that Reed's claim for an unspecified amount of punitive damages caused the first appeal to exceed this court's jurisdictional limit, and, therefore, this court transferred that appeal to the supreme court; however, the supreme court transferred the appeal back to this court pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala.Code 1975.
Meanwhile, on February 1, 2008, the day after Pike had filed the notice of appeal initiating the first appeal, the trial court entered an order ("the February 1 order") certifying the November 5 order as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) and awarding Reed damages in the amount of $26,604. The February 1 order did not purport to grant or deny the other relief sought in Reed's complaint. On March 11, 2008, Pike filed another notice of appeal to this court, which initiated a second appeal ("the second appeal"). We docketed the second appeal as appeal no. 2070542. However, as with the first appeal, we determined that the claim for an unspecified amount of punitive damages in Reed's complaint caused the second appeal to exceed this court's jurisdictional limit, and, therefore, this court transferred the second appeal to the supreme court. The supreme court then transferred the second appeal back to this court pursuant to § 12-2-7(6). Thereafter, we consolidated the first appeal and the second appeal.
Although neither party has questioned whether this court has jurisdiction, we must do so ex mero motu. See Horton v. Horton, 822 So.2d 431, 433 (Ala.Civ.App. 2001) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Swindle v. Swindle
...v. Horton, 822 So.2d 431, 434 (Ala.Civ.App.2001) (quoting Ward v. Ullery, 412 So.2d 796, 797 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) ). See Pike v. Reed, 3 So.3d 201 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (deeming orders entered after a notice of appeal had been filed from a nonfinal judgment to be a “nullity”). We have determined......
-
M.G.D. v. L.B.
...the May 16 order was interlocutory and an appeal will not ordinarily lie from an interlocutory order, see, e.g., Pike v. Reed, 3 So.3d 201, 203 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (“Subject to limited exceptions not applicable in this case, ‘ “ ‘ “an appeal will lie only from a final judgment.” ’ ” ' ” (quo......
-
PIKE v. REED
...in favor of Reed. 2 We dismissed those two appeals on the ground that they were appeals from a nonfinal judgment. See Pike v. Reed, 3 So.3d 201 (Ala.Civ.App.2008). Following our dismissal of those two appeals, the trial court entered a final summary judgment in favor of Reed that, as amende......
-
Pike v. Reed, No. 2080386 (Ala. Civ. App. 6/19/2009)
...in favor of Reed.2 We dismissed those two appeals on the ground that they were appeals from a nonfinal judgment. See Pike v. Reed, 3 So. 3d 201 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). Following our dismissal of those two appeals, the trial court entered a final summary judgment in favor of Reed that, as ame......