Title: Ex parte Maxwell Uhakheme.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL:  06/24/2016
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2015-2016
_________________________
1141367
_________________________
Ex parte Maxwell Uhakheme
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re:  Anniston HMA, LLC, d/b/a Stringfellow Memorial
Hospital
v.
Maxwell Uhakheme)
(Calhoun Circuit Court, CV-15-900273)
WISE, Justice.
1141367
PETITION DENIED;  NO OPINION.  
Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Main, and Bryan, JJ.,
concur.  
Murdock, J., concurs specially.
2
1141367
MURDOCK, Justice (concurring specially).
I concur in the denial of the petition for the writ of
mandamus.  I write to explain that my concurrence does not
communicate any opinion as to the merits of the issues raised
in the petition regarding the trial court's order dismissing
Maxwell Uhakheme's counterclaim alleging breach of contract. 
I concur in the denial of the petition because appellate
review of an order granting a motion to dismiss a claim (or
granting a motion for a summary judgment, as occurred here,
given the fact that the trial court considered materials
outside the pleadings, see Rule 56(c)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P.) is
not by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus but by an
appeal governed by the strictures of Rule 54(b), Ala. R.
Civ. P.  
In this case, the strictures of Rule 54(b) have not been
satisfied.  Other claims and counterclaims remain pending,
and the trial court has not certified its order as final (and
I doubt it could properly do so given the intertwined nature
of the dismissed claim and the remaining claims of the
3
1141367
plaintiff and the counterclaims of Uhakheme).  And, of
course, unless and until the trial court were to adjudicate
those other claims or to certify the order at issue as final,
the order is subject to being altered or vacated by the trial
court itself under the terms of Rule 54(b).  
In short, appellate review is not available in a
circumstance such as this.  Were this Court to begin granting
mandamus review of such orders, we would effectively nullify
Rule 54(b), circumventing the conditions for such review
prescribed by that rule, tempting trial courts to postpone
consideration of remaining claims until an interlocutory
appellate ruling is obtained, and requiring the expenditure
of limited appellate resources on an untold number of
petitions seeking piecemeal review.
  
4