### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE A TME MP H IS Febr uary 23, 201 0 S es sio n BARRY I. CHO OK v. TA SHAWN N . P IREL A JON ES andKEN NET H JONE S A p p ea l f ro m th e C ircu it C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. C T - 006057- 07 D ' A rm y B ai l ey, Judge
N o. W 2008- 02276- C O A - R 3- C V - F i l ed M arch 17, 2010

T h is is a n a p p e a l o f a d is c o v e rym a tter. T h e p lain tiff w a s in v o lv e d in a m o to r v e h icle acc i dentw i t h t he def

endant s . O ne y earand one da yaft ert he acc i dent , t he pl ai nt i ff f i l ed a law su it a ss e rtin g n e g lig e n c e . T h e c o m p lain t s o u g h t m o n e yd a m a g e s f o r d a m a g e to p ro p e rty and per s onal injury
. T he def endant s fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s bas ed on the s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s. T he plai nti ff sou gh textensi ve d i scoveryof the defe nd ants ’ per sonal r ecords. T he tr i al cou rtden i ed the plai nti ff’s m oti on t o com pel di scoveryand grant ed the defen dan t s’ m ot i on t o di s m iss. T h e p lai nt i ff now appea l s . W e fi nd t hatt he or derfr om w hi ch the p lain tiff a p p e a ls is n o t a f

in a l ju d g m e n t. A c c o rd in g ly , w e d ism iss th e a p p e a l. T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; A ppeal D i s m i s s ed H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J
. , del i ver ed the opinio n o f the C our t , i n w hi ch A L AN E. H I GHERS , P .J ., W
. S. , and D AV I D R. F ARMER , J
. , j oi ned. W i l l i am E
. Fr i edman, M emphi s , T ennes s ee, fort he Pl ai nt i ff/A ppel l ant , B arr yI
. C hook F o rre st R . Je n k in s, G e rm a n to w n , T enn essee, for the D efen dan t/A pp ellee s, T a sh a w n N . P ire la J ones and K enneth J ones D arr y l D
. G r es ham and H arr yW
. L ebai r , I V , M emphi s , T ennes s ee fo r the unnamed A ppel l ee, G E I C O I ndemni t yC om panyRule 1 0. Memorand um Opin ion 1 This Co urt, with the co ncurren ce o f all judg es p articipatingin the ca se, m ay affirm , re v erse or modify

the actions of thetrial co urt by memorand

um op inion whe n a formal op inion w ou ld h av e no p re ce de nt ia l v alue . Wh en a cas e is d ec id ed

b y memor an dum

o pi ni on it s ha ll be d esignated “MEMOR

ANDUM OP I

NI ON ”, shall n ot bepu

blished , and s hall n ot becited or relied on for any reaso n in any

unrelated case. T ENN . C T . A PP . R. 10. Tennessee Cod e Annotate d § 28
- 3- 104(a)(1) pro v ides: 2 (a) The follo wingaction s sha ll be com m enced within one (1) y ear after the ca use of ac tion accrued : (1) Action s for libel, for injuries to the p erson, false im prisonment, m alicious prosecution, breachof m arriag e pro mise; T.C
. A
. § 2 8- 3- 10 4 (2 00 0)
. -2- M E M OR AN DU M OP I NI ON 1 F AC T S AN D P ROCEEDI NGS B E L OW O n D ece m ber4, 2006, Pl ai nt i ff/A ppel l antB arr yI
. C hook ( “M r. C hook”) w as i nvol ved i n a vehi cul aracc i denti n Shel byC ounty , T en nes s ee. M r . C hook’ s vehi cl e w as al l egedl yr ear - ended bya vehi cl e ow ned byD efe ndant/ A ppel l ees T as haw n N
. Pi r el a J ones (“M rs . Jones”) and K enn et h J on es ( “M r. Jones”); M rs . Jones w as dri ving att he ti m e. A s a re su lt o f th e c o lli sio n , M r. C h o o k a lleg e d lysu sta in e d p e rso n a l in ju rie s a n d d a m a g e to h is vehi cl e. O n D ecem ber 5, 20 07 , M r. C ho ok fi l ed the i nst ant l aw sui tagainstM r. and M rs . Jones. I n t he compl ai nt , M r . C hook s ought r ecove r y for bot h per s onal i nj ur yand pr oper t ydamage c a u se d b yM rs. J o n e s’s p u rp o rte d n e g lig e n c e . M r. C h o o k a lso se rv e d th e c o m p lain t o n h is u n i n s u r e d a n d u n d e r i ns ur e d mot or i s ti ns ur a nc e c a rr i e r , u n n a me d De f e n d a n t/Ap p e l l e e GEI CO I n d e m n i t y C o m p a n y ( “ G E I C O ” ) ( G E I C O a n d M r . a n d M r s . J o n e s c o l l e c t i v e l y, “D ef en d an ts”). A ft er ans w er i ng t he com pl ai nt , G E I C O fi l ed a m ot i on forpar t i al s um m aryj udgm ent o n the issu e o f d am ag es f o r M r. C h o o k ’s p erso n al in jury
. G E IC O arg u ed that M r. C h o o k ’s r e c o v e r yo f

d a ma g e s f

o rp e r s o n a l i n

j u r ywas b a r r e d b yt h e o n e - y e a rs t a tu t e o f l i m i t at i ons 2Tennessee Cod e Annotate d § 28
- 1- 111 provides: 3 I f at any ti m e any c au se o f ac ti on

s hall a cc ru e ag ai ns t a

ny p er so n who s ha llb e out o f th is st at e, the act io n m ay

be co m m en ce d w ithi n th e ti me li mit ed the re fo r, a ft er

s uc h pe rs on

s ha ll hav e co m e into the state; an d, after any cau se o f action

sha ll hav e acc rue d, if th e pe rson ag ainst whom

it h as ac crued shall b e ab sent fro m o rr e s i de out of th e state, the tim e of absen ce o r residence out of the state shall not be tak en as anypart of the tim e limited fo r the com m encement o f the action. T.C.A . § 28
- 1- 111 (2000 ).
-3- beca us e he f

i l ed s ui tm or e t han one y ear aft er t he acci dent occurr ed. Subse quent l y , M r . and M rs . Jones fil ed an answ er and a m oti on t o d i sm i ss on t he sam e groun ds. I n r es pons e, M r . C hook ar gued thatt he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w as t ol l ed under T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed § 28- 1- 111 beca us e M r . and M r s . J ones m ayhave be en abs ent 3 fro m the s tat e d u ri n g the lim it ati o n s p eriod
. H av ing n o ev iden ce that theyw ere ab sen t, M r. C h o o k a s k e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o h o l d t h e D e f e n d a n t s ’ m o t i o n s i n a b e ya n c e p e n d i n g d i s c o v e r y. T h e t r i a l c o u r td i d s o , a n d a l l o w e d M r . C h o o k l i m i t e d d i s c o v e r y. M r . C hook t hen pr opounded i nt err ogat or i es , as ki n g M r . a n d M r s . J o nes w hetherei t her of them had tr avel ed “out s i de t he s t at e of Tennes s ee” dur i ng t he pert i nentt i m e per i od. N ot cont entw i t h l i m i t i ng hi s di s coveryr eques t s t o t hi s i nqui r y , M r . C hook al s o as ked t he J ones es t o di s cl os e thei rs o c i a l s e c u r i t ynum ber s , dr i ver ’ s l i cens e number s , bank ac counti nfor m at i on, and cr edi tcar d acc ounti nfo rm at i on. H e al s o pr opounded a r eques tforpr oduct i on of document s , s eeki ng t he J ones es ’ bank ac counts t at em ent s , canc el l ed che cks , and ce l l ul ar t el eph on e bil l s. I n r es pons e t o t he i nt err ogat or i es , M r. and M r s . J ones s t at ed underoath t hat , ot her t han a one

- dayt r i p t o di ne atL amber t ’ s R es t aur anti n Si kes t on, M i s s our i , t heyhad not t r avel ed out s i de of Tennes s ee dur i ng t he pert i nentt i m e per i od. T heyacknow l edged be i ng m em b ers o f a cre d itu n ion
. T h e Jo n ese s o b jected to the rem aind er o f M r. C h o o k ’s disco v ery request s. M r. C h o o k then fil ed a m o ti o n to co m p e l d isco v eryan d fo r att o rne y ’s fe es. In re sp o n se , M r. an d M rs. J o n e s re n e w e d th e ir m o tio n to d ism iss M r. C h o o k ’s c laim w ith r e s p e c tt o d a m a g e s f

o rp e r s o n a l i n

j u r y.-4-

O n J une 27, 2008, t he tr i al cour tconduct ed a he ar i ng on the p arti es’ m ot i ons . N ot surpr i si ng l y , M r. C ho ok ’s m oti on t o com pel dis cov ery w as no t grant ed an d th e Jo neses’ m oti on t o d i sm i ss w as grant ed. M r. C ho ok no w app eal s.

I SS UE ON A PPE AL AN D S T AN DA RD OF R EVIE W On a p p e a l , M r . Ch o o k p r e s e n t s t h e f o l l o wi n g i s s u e f

o rr e v i e w: I s M r . C hook ent i t l ed t o ful l di s coveryfr om M r . and M r s . J ones , and t o m ake in v e stig a tio n , w ith re sp e c t to w h e th e r e ith e r o f th e m w e re o u tsid e o f

th e sta te o f T e n n e ss e e d u rin g th e y e a r f o llo w in g th e m o to r v e h icle a c c id e n t? “W e r evi ew a t r i al cour t ' s deci s i on r egar di ng pr e- t r i al di s coverym at t er s underan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. ” B M G Music v. Chum ley , N o . M2 0 0 7
- 0 1 0 7 5
- C O A
- R 9
- C V , 2 0 0 8 WL 2 1 6 5 9 8 5 , a t * 4 (T e n n . C t. A p p . M a y1 6 , 2 0 0 8 ), no per m . app. ( ci t i ng B enton v. Snyder , 825 S. W
. 2d 409, 416 ( T enn. 1992) )
. A n abus e of di s cr et i on occur s “w hen the tr i al cour tappl i es an i ncorr ectl egal s t andar d orr eac hes a conc l us i on t hati s ‘ i l l ogi cal orunr eas onabl e and caus es an i nj us t i ce t o t he part ycompl ai ni ng. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng S ta te v . L e w is , 235 S. W
. 3d 136, 1 4 1 (T en n . 2 0 0 7 )). A N A LY S IS B efor e w e can re ach the subs t ant i ve i s s ue on appea l , w e mustfi r s tdet erm i ne w hether this C o u rth as su b

ject m att er jurisdicti o n to h ea r th e a p p e a l. See T ENN . R. A PP . P. 1 3 (b). “Subj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on conce r ns t he author i t yof a pa r t i cul arcour tt o heara part i cul ar contr over s y . ” Mei

ghan v. U

. S. Sprint

Com m c’ns Co. , 924 S. W
. 2d 632, 639 ( T enn. 1996) ( ci t i ng L anders v. Jones , 8 7 2 S
. W
. 2 d 6 7 4 (T en n . 1 9 9 4 )). T h is C o u rt “ d o e s n o t h a v e su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n o v e r o rd e rs th a t ar e n o t f in a l, unl es s ot herw i s e pr ovi ded bys t atut e ort he R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e. ” Cit y of Jacks on v. Hersh , N o. W 2008- 02360- C O A
- R 3- C V , 2009 W L 2601380, at*3 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. A ug. 2 5 , 2 0 0 9 ), n o p e r m. a

p p. (cit ing B ayber r

y A s s ocs . v. Jones , 783 S. W
. 2d 553, 559 ( T enn. 1990) )
. A fi nal j udgm ent i s one thatadj udi cat es al l cl ai m s , r i ght s and l i abi l i t i es of al l par t i es to a n a c tio n . See T ENN . R. A PP . P. 3( a)
. E xceptas ot herw i s e pr ovi ded i n R ul es 9 and 10 of th e T e n n e ss e e R u les o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re o r R u le 5 4 .0 2 o f th e T e n n e ss e e R u les o f C iv il Pr ocedur e, an or derthat ad jud icat es few ert han al l of the cl ai m s oral l of the r i ght s and l i a b i litie s o f

th e p a rt ie s is n o t a f

in a l, a p p e a la b le o rd e r. I d. ; Cit y of Jacks on , 2 0 0 9 WL 26 01 38 , a t*3
. I n t hi s c a s e , t he r e w a s no a pp l i c a t i on fo r pe r mi s s i on t o a pp e a l un de rT. R. A
. P. 9 or10.-5-

T he or derfr om w hi ch M r . C hook appea l s di s m i s s es w i t h p rejudi ce hi s “cl ai m for p erso n al i n

juri es” an d g ran ts “fina l j u d g m en t .
. . in f a v o r of D ef en d an ts as to P lai n ti ff ’s c laim f o r p e rso n a l in

ju rie s.” It is u n d isp u ted th a t M r. C h o o k so u g h t d a m a g e s f o r p ro p e rty d a m a g e a s w e l l a s f

o rp e r s o n a l i n

j u r y. A n or dert hatdoes notr es ol ve al l of t he r i ght s and l i abi l i t i es of t he part i es m ay , under s om e ci r cumst ance s , be made fi nal and appe al abl e underR ul e 54. 02 of the Tennes s ee Rul es of C i vil P rocedu re. R ule 54. 02 st at es: W hen m ore t han on e cl ai m for r el i ef i s pres ent in a n acti on , w hetheras a cl ai m , count er cl ai m , cr os s - cl ai m , ort hi r d par t ycl ai m , orw hen mul t i pl e part i es ar e i nvol ved, t he C our t , w hetheratl aw ori n equi t y , m aydi r ectt he entr yof a fi nal j udgm entas t o on e o r m o re b utfew ert han al l of the cl ai m s orpar t i es onl yupon an expr es s det erm i nat i on t hat t her e i s no j us t r eas on for del ayand upon an expr es s di r ec t i on fort he entr yof j udgm ent
. I n t he abs ence of s uch det erm i nat i on and di r ect i on, anyor derorot herfor m of dec i s i on, how ever des i gnat ed, t hatadj udi cat es few erthan al l t he cl aim s ort he r i ght s and l i abi l i t i es of fe w er t han al l t he par t i es s hal l not t erm i nat e t he act i on as t o any o f th e c laim s o r p a rties , an d th e o r d e r o r o th e r f o rm o f d e c isio n is s u b

jec t to r evi s i on atanyt i m e bef or e the entr yo f the j udgm entadj udi cat i ng al l t he cl ai m s and the ri gh t s and li abil i t i es of all t he p art i es. T ENN . R. C IV . P. 54. 02. H ow ever , t o be a f i nal and appe al abl e or derunderR ul e 54. 02, t he or der m us tcont ai n R ul e 54. 02’ s “magi c l anguage . ” State ex r el . Com m ’ r of

T enn. D ept

. of Tr a ns p . v . W e s t Coa s t , LLC , N o . M 2 0 0 9 -0 0 1 4 0 -C O A -R 3 -C V , 2 0 0 9 W L 4 8 0 1 7 1 3 , a t * 4 n .4 (T e n n . C t. A p p . D e c . 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 ), no per m . app. ( “thatt her e be a n expr es s det erm i nat i on t hat t her e i s no j us tr eas on fordel ayand thatt her e be a n expr es s di r ect i on fo rentr yof a f i nal ju d g m e n t.”). T h e o rd e r f ro m w h ich M r. C h o o k a p p e a ls d o e s n o t co n tain th e “ m a g ic lang u ag e” an d thu s is no t a fina l, ap p ea lable o rde r. M o re o v e r, ev e n if

th e trial c o u rt’s o rd e r c o n tain e d th e a p p ro p ria te la n g u a g e f ro m R u le 5 4
. 0 2 , t h e o r d e rd o e s n o tr e s o l v e a d i s t i n c t“ c l a i m” f o rp u rp o s e s o f

Ru l e 5 4
. 0 2
. A “ c l a i m” d e n o te s “ th e a g g re g a te o f o p e ra tiv e f

a c ts w h ic h g iv e ri s e to a ri g h t e n f o rc e a b le in th e c o u rt s .” Ch r is tu s Ga r de n s, I

n c . v . Ba k e r

, Do n e l s o n , Be a r m an, Caldwe l l & Be rk o wit

z , P. C. , N o. M 2 0 0 7 -0 1 1 0 4 -C O A -R 3 -C V , 2 0 0 8 W L 3 8 3 3 6 1 3 , a t * 5 (T e n n . C t. A p p . A u g . 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 ), no per m . app. ( quot i ng McIn tyr e v . Firs t N a t'l B a n k o

f Cin c in n a ti , 5 8 5 F
. 2 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 1 (6th C ir
. 1978) )
. T hus , “a c om pl ai ntas s er t i ng onl yone l egal r i ght , even i f s eeki ng m ul t i pl e r emedi es fort he al l eged vi ol at i on of thatr i ght , s t at es a s i ngl e cl ai m forr el i ef. ” I d. ( q u o t i ng L ib e rty Mut . I ns. Co. v. W

et z el , 424 U
. S. 737, 744 ( 1976) )
. H er e, M r . C hook al l eges t hatM r s . J ones negl i gent l yr ear -en d ed hi s vehi cl e, and he s eeks r ecove r yforbot h pr oper t ydamage and-6-

p e rso n a l in

ju ryc a u se d b yh e r n e g lig e n t ac t. U n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, f o r p u rp o se s o f

R u le 54. 02, M r . C hook as s er t s onl yone cl ai m , for al l damages ar i s i ng outof M r s . J ones ’ s actof col l i di ng w it h h is vehi cl e. T her efor e, even i f the or derbel ow cont ai ned the l anguage re q u ire d u n d e r R u le 5 4 .0 2 , the o rd e r is n o t ap p ro p ria te f o r c e rtific a tio n a s a f

in a l, ap p e a lab le or derunderR ul e 54. 02. T her efor e, w e must concl ude t hat t hi s C our tdoes nothave s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on t o heart hi s appea l , and the appe al m us tbe di s m i s s ed. C ONC L US I ON F o r th e re aso n s set fo rth ab o v e, the ap p ea l is d ism issed
. T h e c o sts of this ap p ea l are tax e d to th e A p p e llan t B a rryI. C h o o k , an d h is s u re ty , f o r w h ich e x e c u tio n m a yiss u e if n e c e s s a ry.

_________________________________ HOL L Y M
. KI RB Y, J UDGE