Title: Buchman Plumbing Co. v. Regents of Univ. of Minn.

State: minnesota

Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court

Document:

196 N.W.2d 629 (1972) BUCHMAN PLUMBING COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, Respondent, James Steele Construction Company, Respondent. and REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, third-party plaintiff, Respondent, v. JAMES STEELE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and United Pacific Insurance Company, third-party defendants, Respondents. No. 43412. Supreme Court of Minnesota. April 7, 1972. Sheldon J. Eviden and Stephen M. Goldfarb, Minneapolis, for appellant. Carlsen, Greiner & Law, Minneapolis, for U of M Regents. Briggs & Morgan, St. Paul, for Steele. Considered by the court en banc. PER CURIAM. This case is before the court on a motion to dismiss an appeal from an order dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice as to one of codefendants, that dismissal having been granted on the grounds that plaintiff's complaint failed to establish a *630 claim upon which relief may be granted. For reasons herewith stated, the motion to dismiss the appeal is hereby granted. The case involves multiple parties and multiple claims and must be considered in light of Rule 54.02, Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule provides as follows: The trial court refrained from determining that there was "no just reason for delay," and did not directly order "entry of judgment" as a part of the order for dismissal. The trial court ruled that the remaining claims should be set down for immediate trial. The order of dismissal did not terminate the action and is subject to revision under Rule 54.02. The purpose and intent of Rule 54.02 is stated in 2 Hetland & Adamson, Minnesota Practice, Civil Rules Ann., p. 525, as follows: We therefore hold that in a multiparty action an order dismissing one of the parties for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is not an appealable order and that an appeal from such an order must be dismissed unless the trial court expressly determines that there is no reason for delay and directs the entry of judgment thereon. The order dismissing the cause of action is subject to revision in the trial of the remaining issues and is subject to review by this court in the event of an appeal after an adjudication of the remaining issues. Appeal dismissed.