Schlarb v. Lee, 1050413.
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | Woodall |
| Citation | 955 So.2d 418 |
| Parties | Lisa SCHLARB v. Davis LEE and Danny Yancey. |
| Docket Number | 1050413. |
| Decision Date | 13 October 2006 |
v.
Davis LEE and Danny Yancey.
[955 So.2d 419]
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.
WOODALL, Justice.
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).
"It bears repeating, here, that `"[c]ertifications under Rule 54(b) should be entered only in exceptional cases and should not be entered routinely."' State v. Lawhorn, 830 So.2d 720, 725 (Ala. 2002) (quoting Baker v. Bennett, 644 So.2d 901, 903 (Ala.1994), citing in turn Branch v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So.2d 1373 (Ala.1987)). `"`Appellate review in a piecemeal fashion is not favored.'"' Goldome Credit Corp. [v. Player, 869...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weldon v. Ballow, 2140471.
...closely intertwined that separate adjudication would pose an unreasonable risk of inconsistent results.” ’ ” 200 So.3d 659Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So.2d 418, 419–20 (Ala.2006) (quoting Clarke–Mobile Counties Gas Dist. v. Prior Energy Corp., 834 So.2d 88, 95 (Ala.2002), quoting in turn Branch v. ......
-
Williams v. Williams, 2130615.
...court are so closely intertwined that separate adjudications would pose an unreasonable risk of inconsistent results. Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So.2d 418, 419–20 (Ala.2006). In this case, the claim resolved in the partial-summary-judgment order certified as final was the claim regarding the valid......
-
Smalls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2130665.
...Corp., 834 So.2d 88, 95 (Ala.2002) (quoting Branch v. 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 whether unadjudicated claims actually remain pending in the trial c......
-
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......
-
Weldon v. Ballow, 2140471.
...closely intertwined that separate adjudication would pose an unreasonable risk of inconsistent results.” ’ ” 200 So.3d 659Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So.2d 418, 419–20 (Ala.2006) (quoting Clarke–Mobile Counties Gas Dist. v. Prior Energy Corp., 834 So.2d 88, 95 (Ala.2002), quoting in turn Branch v. ......
-
Williams v. Williams, 2130615.
...court are so closely intertwined that separate adjudications would pose an unreasonable risk of inconsistent results. Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So.2d 418, 419–20 (Ala.2006). In this case, the claim resolved in the partial-summary-judgment order certified as final was the claim regarding the valid......
-
Smalls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2130665.
...Corp., 834 So.2d 88, 95 (Ala.2002) (quoting Branch v. 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 whether unadjudicated claims actually remain pending in the trial c......
-
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......