Schlarb v. Lee
Decision Date | 13 October 2006 |
Docket Number | 1050413. |
Citation | 955 So.2d 418 |
Parties | Lisa SCHLARB v. Davis LEE and Danny Yancey. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Charles H. Pullen, Huntsville; and Robert W. Hanson, Albertville, for appellant.
G. Bartley Loftin III and Deanna S. Smith of Balch & Bingham, LLP, Huntsville, for appellees.
Lisa Schlarb appeals the trial court's partial summary judgment for Davis Lee and Danny Yancey, the defendants in an action filed by Schlarb in the Marshall Circuit Court. We dismiss the appeal.
In February 2003, Lee and Yancey, the owners of Job Source, L.L.C., terminated Schlarb's employment with that company. On December 14, 2004, Schlarb sued Lee and Yancey, stating two counts in her complaint. In one count, Schlarb claimed to have an ownership interest in Job Source, which interest, according to her, Lee and Yancey had unlawfully converted by terminating her employment. In an alternative count, Schlarb alleged that Lee and Yancey had been guilty of fraud. According to Schlarb, while Lee and Yancey had represented to her that she would have an ownership interest in Job Source, she never received any "indicia of ownership in the business."
On September 22, 2005, Lee and Yancey filed a motion for a summary judgment. Before the trial court ruled on the motion, Schlarb amended her complaint to add a breach-of-contract claim against Lee and Yancey. After incorporating by reference the allegations of her earlier complaint, Schlarb simply alleged that she had "a contractual relationship" with Lee and Yancey, which they had breached by her "exclusion ... from the business of Job Source."
On November 21, 2005, the trial court entered a summary judgment for Lee and Yancey on Schlarb's conversion and fraud claims. On November 30, 2005, the trial court, sua sponte, certified its partial summary judgment as final under Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. Schlarb's breach-of-contract claim remains pending in the trial court.
This Court looks with some disfavor upon certifications under Rule 54(b).
Dzwonkowski v. Sonitrol of Mobile, Inc., 892 So.2d 354, 363 (Ala.2004). Also, a Rule 54(b) certification should not be entered if the issues in the claim being certified and a claim that will remain pending in the trial court "`are so closely intertwined that separate adjudication would pose an unreasonable risk of inconsistent results.'" Clarke-Mobile Counties Gas Dist. v. Prior Energy Corp., 834 So.2d 88, 95 (Ala.2002) (quoting Branch v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So.2d 1373, 1374 (Ala. 1987)).
Lee and Yancey argue that "the facts and issues relating to Schlarb's claim of breach of contract are so closely intertwined with the issues relating to her claims [of] fraud...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weldon v. Ballow
...... would pose an unreasonable risk of inconsistent results.” ’ ” 200 So.3d 659 Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So.2d 418, 419–20 (Ala.2006) (quoting Clarke–Mobile Counties Gas Dist. v. Prior ......
-
Williams v. Williams, 2130615.
...... Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So.2d 418, 419–20 (Ala.2006). In this case, the claim resolved in the ......
-
Smalls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2130665.
......SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So.2d 1373, 1374 (Ala.1987) )." Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So.2d 418, 419–20 (Ala.2006). At the request of this court, the parties addressed ......
-
Wallace v. Belleview Props. Corp., 1100902.
...an inconsistent result between the judgment certified as final and the subsequent final judgment on the remaining claims. Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So.2d 418, 419–20 (Ala.2006) (“[A] Rule 54(b) certification should not be entered if the issues in the claim being certified and a claim that will re......
-
Rule 54(b) Orders: Are They Losing Their Appeal?
...54(b) orders to "exceptional cases." See Centennial Assoc., Ltd. v. Guthrie, 20 So.3d 1277, 1279-80 (Ala. 2009) (quoting Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So.2d 418, 419 (Ala. 2006)). Indeed, if strictly applied, these two doctrines would permit review of Rule 54(b) orders only if the order resolved all ......
-
You Can Appeal That Order... Right?! or Finality: the Great Conundrum
...Loachapoka Water Authority, Inc. v. Water Works Bd. of City of Auburn, 74 So. 3d 419, 422-23 (Ala. 2011) quoting Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So. 2d 418, 419-20 (Ala. 2006) quoting in turn Clarke-Mobile Counties Gas Dist. v. Prior Energy Corp., 834 So. 2d 88, 5 (Ala. 2002).17. Sanspree v. Sterling B......