Madrid v. Avalon Care Center-Chandler, L.L.C.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

GLORIA Y. MADRID, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF

JOSEPHINA Y. ODELL aka JOSEPHINE Y. ODELL, on behalf of

the ESTATE OF JOSEPHINA Y. ODELL, deceased; and GLORIA

MADRID, individually and on behalf of JOSEPHINA Y. ODELL’S

statutory beneficiaries pursuant to

A.R.S. section 12-612(A),

Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

AVALON CARE CENTER – CHANDLER, L.L.C., dba CHANDLER

HEALTH CARE CENTER; AVALON HEALTH CARE INC., a Utah

corporation; MARY ANN STANFORD, Administrator,

Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CV 14-0359

FILED 11-18-14

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CV2010-027775

The Honorable J. Richard Gama, Judge

APPEAL DISMISSED

COUNSEL

Law Office of Scott E. Boehm, P.C., Phoenix

By Scott E. Boehm

Wilkes & McHugh, P.A., Phoenix

By Melanie L. Bossie, Donna Y. Oh

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant

Miller Toone, P.C., Salt Lake City, Utah

By Barry C. Toone

Counsel for Defendants/Appellees

OPINION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the opinion of the Court, in which

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Andrew W. Gould

joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 This opinion addresses the issue of appellate jurisdiction

over a judgment stating “that no further matters remain pending”

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 54(c) (2014),1 even

though claims remain pending in the superior court. This court previously

determined it lacked appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal with

this opinion to follow.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Gloria Madrid, as personal representative of the Estate of

Josephina Y. Odell, and on behalf of the statutory beneficiaries of the

Estate, filed a complaint alleging three causes of action against three

defendants.2 The superior court later (1) granted defendants’ motions to

compel arbitration as to certain claims, but did not otherwise dispose of

those claims; and (2) disposed of the remaining claims by granting

defendants’ motions for summary judgment. At defendants’ request, the

court then entered a written, signed judgment stating that the judgment

was granted “on all claims not dismissed from this action,” and “[t]here

1Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

2Other named defendants either were never served and did not appear,

or were dismissed by stipulation, and are not relevant to determining

appellate jurisdiction. See McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp., 133 Ariz. 530, 532,

652 P.2d 1377, 1379 (1982); Baker v. Bradley, 231 Ariz. 475, 481–82 ¶¶ 21–23,

296 P.3d 1011, 1017–18 (App. 2013).

2

MADRID v. AVALON et al.

Opinion of the Court

being no further matters pending, final judgment is to be entered

pursuant to” Rule 54(c). Plaintiff appeals from this judgment.

DISCUSSION

¶3 This court’s “appellate jurisdiction is purely statutory.” State

v. Bayardi, 230 Ariz. 195, 197, 281 P.3d 1063, 1065 (App. 2012) (citing Ariz.

Const. art. 6, § 9 and Hall Family Props., Ltd. v. Gosnell Dev. Corp., 185 Ariz.

382, 386, 916 P.2d 1098, 1102 (App. 1995)). “Generally, this court’s

jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final judgments which dispose of all

claims and parties.” Baker v. Bradley, 231 Ariz. 475, 479 ¶ 9, 296 P.3d 1011,

1015 (App. 2013) (citing Garza v. Swift Transp. Co., 222 Ariz. 281, 284, 213

P.3d 1008, 1011 (2009) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 12-2101(A)(1)). As

potentially applicable here, there are two types of judgments from which

an appeal may be taken: (1) a Rule 54(c) judgment and (2) a Rule 54(b)

judgment.3 The parties dispute whether the judgment is proper under

these rules. This court reviews de novo a superior court’s determination

that a judgment is final. Kim v. Mansoori, 214 Ariz. 457, 459 ¶ 6, 153 P.3d

1086, 1088 (App. 2007).

I. Arizona Rule Of Civil Procedure 54(c).

¶4 Effective January 1, 2014, “[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).” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(c). This

language is the product of a rule change petition intended to make clear

“whether an order of a Superior Court is, or is intended to be, a final,

appealable ‘judgment’” and to allow ease in “determining the extent to

which a putative judgment resolves a case as to all claims and all parties.”

Petition to Amend Rules 54 and 58, Ariz. R. Civ. P., and Rule 9, Ariz. R.

Civ. App. P. at 3 (Jan. 9, 2013) (No. R-13-0005) available at

http://azdnn.dnnmax.com/Portals/0/NTForums_Attach/11937332582.p

df.

3 This case does not involve an attempt to invoke special action

jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(4). This case also does not involve an

independently-appealable order regarding arbitration. See A.R.S. § 12-

2101.01(A)(1)–(2). Nor do the parties argue that the judgment is

appealable on any basis other than as a final judgment. See A.R.S. § 12-

120.21(A)(1).

3

MADRID v. AVALON et al.

Opinion of the Court

¶5 If all claims by all parties have been resolved, a superior

court should enter a final judgment properly reflecting that resolution.

When presented with a judgment in proper form after resolution of all

claims by all parties, entry of judgment does not involve discretion on the

part of the superior court. Given this, if a judgment is entered that resolves

all claims by all parties, but the superior court does not make the Rule

54(c) statement, this court may suspend an appeal to allow the superior

court the opportunity to provide such a statement. See Ariz. R. Civ. App.

P. (ARCAP) 9.1; ARCAP 3(b) (effective 1/1/2015). Although Rule 54(c)

does not expressly require that the statement appear in the text of the

judgment, and although the statement could appear in a minute entry or

hearing transcript, the better practice is to include in the judgment itself

the statement that no further matters remain pending and that the

judgment is entered pursuant to Rule 54(c).

¶6 Defendants contend this court has appellate jurisdiction

because the superior court entered a signed judgment containing a Rule

54(c) statement. Although the judgment states that judgment was granted

on all claims as to all parties, some claims remain to be resolved because

the claims to be arbitrated have not been dismissed or otherwise resolved

by the superior court. Cf. S. California Edison Co. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 194

Ariz. 47, 52–53 ¶¶ 17–18, 977 P.2d 769, 774–75 (1999) (holding “that an

order to compel arbitration, without more, is not appealable”); see also

A.R.S. § 12-3007(G) (noting, when arbitration is ordered, the court “on just

terms shall stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim subject to the

arbitration”). Therefore, the Rule 54(c) language in the judgment stating

that there are “no further matters pending” is not accurate. A statement

that a judgment is final pursuant to Rule 54(c) when, in fact, claims remain

pending does not make a judgment final and appealable. Accordingly,

because the record demonstrates that not all claims as to all parties have

been resolved, the judgment is not a Rule 54(c) judgment over which this

court has appellate jurisdiction.

II. Arizona Rule Of Civil Procedure 54(b).

¶7 As potentially applicable here, Rule 54(b) states:

[w]hen more than one claim for relief is

presented in an action, whether as a claim,

counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim,

or when multiple parties are involved, the

court may direct the entry of final judgment as

to one or more but fewer than all of the claims

4

MADRID v. AVALON et al.

Opinion of the Court

or parties 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). “[A] claim for attorneys’ fees may be considered a

separate claim from the related judgment regarding the merits of a cause.”

Id.

¶8 Rule 54(b) is intended to promote judicial economy, Cont’l Cas.

v. Superior Court, 130 Ariz. 189, 192, 635 P.2d 174, 177 (1981), and is a

“compromise between the policy against interlocutory appeals and the

desirability, in a few cases, of an immediate appeal to prevent an injustice,”

Sw. Gas Corp. v. Irwin ex rel. County of Cochise, 229 Ariz. 198, 202 ¶ 10, 273 P.3d

650, 654 (App. 2012) (emphasis added). A proper Rule 54(b) judgment is

immediately appealable. See Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp., 168 Ariz. 301,

304, 812 P.2d 1119, 1122 (App. 1991). However, this court lacks jurisdiction

over an appeal from a judgment that does not resolve all claims as to all

parties and that does not include Rule 54(b) language. Stevens v. Mehagian’s

Home Furnishings, Inc., 90 Ariz. 42, 45, 365 P.2d 208, 210 (1961).

¶9 The judgment here does not include Rule 54(b) language. Cf.

Grand v. Nacchio, 214 Ariz. 9, 16 ¶ 17, 147 P.3d 763, 770 (App. 2006)

(suggesting, in dicta, that judgment stating “[t]here is no just reason for

delay” but not citing Rule 54(b) would be appealable). This “lack of a

[Rule] 54(b) determination defeats finality.” Pulaski v. Perkins, 127 Ariz.

216, 217, 619 P.2d 488, 489 (App. 1980). Accordingly, the judgment is not a

Rule 54(b) judgment over which this court has appellate jurisdiction.

¶10 Plaintiff asks this court to suspend the appeal to allow the

superior court to enter a Rule 54(b) judgment. However, where an appeal

is taken from a putative Rule 54(b) judgment and there is a Rule 54(b)

deficiency, this court lacks jurisdiction to suspend the appeal to allow the

superior court to consider entering a Rule 54(b) judgment. Id. at 218–19,

619 P.2d at 490–91.

5

MADRID v. AVALON et al.

Opinion of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶11 The inclusion of Rule 54(c) language in a judgment that does

not resolve all claims by all parties is not a final judgment and,

accordingly, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction over such a judgment.

Absent an otherwise appealable judgment, this court lacks jurisdiction to

suspend an appeal to allow a party to seek a Rule 54(b) judgment.

Accordingly, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction in this case. The parties

are not without the ability to seek an appealable judgment from the

superior court, either pursuant to Rule 54(b) now or Rule 54(c) after

resolution in the superior court of all claims by all parties. Because this

court currently lacks appellate jurisdiction, however, the appeal is

dismissed.

:jt

6