Thi s opi ni on i s su bj ec tt o r ev i si on be f or e f i nal pub l i cat i on in t he Pa ci f i c R epor t er
20 15 UT 3

I N T HE 

### S UPR EM E 

### C OU RT OF TH E 

### S TA TE O F 

### U TAH

G LE NDA M C G I B B ON , Appe lla nt, v. F ARM ERS I NSUR ANCE E X CHANGE ,

Appe lle e

.
No. 20120484 Filed January 23, 2015

S ec ond D is tric t, Ogd en D ep ’t Th e H ono rab le S c ott M. Ha dl ey No. 090902055

Att or neys: Erik M . Ward, Lindy W. Hamilton, Rober t W. Gibbons

Salt Lake City , for applellant
Ll oyd R . J one s , S al t La ke C ity, fo r ap pe ll ee
J UST I CE D UR HAM authore d the opinion of the Co urt, in which C H IEF J UST I CE D UR R ANT , A S S OC I ATE C H IEF J UST I CE N EHR I NG ,

J UST I CE P ARRIS H , and J UST I CE L EE joined.
J UST I CE D UR HAM , op inion of the Cou rt:
INTRODUCTION ¶1 Gl en da Mc Gibb on ap pe al s fro m a di s tric t c ou r t orde r compelling her to arbitrate her claim s againsthe r i nsu rance company, Farme rs Insurance Exchan ge (Far mers). We conc lude that

we lack jurisdi ction to consi der her appeal and there fore dismiss it without ruling on it s merits.
BACKGROUND ¶2 Ms. McGibb on filed this law suit aft e r being inju red in an automobile accident. Atthe time of t he a cc i d e nt, she owned an insu rance policy with Farmer s tha t inclu ded unin sured motor ist

c overa ge. ¶3 Becaus e insu rer s wh o pro vide such cover age ultimately be ar th e u ni ns ure d m otori s ts ’ l ia bi li ty , th e ym ay c ont es t th at l ia bi li ty by interv ening in their policyhold ers’ lawsui ts against the unins ured. Far mers did so, bec oming a defendant and fil ing an

an s w er to Ms

. Mc Gibb on’ s c om pl ai nt. Th e p arti es la ter s tip ul ate d to di s mi s s the unin s ure d dri ver, le avi ng F arm ers as the s ole de fe nd ant.M C G I B B ON v. F ARM ERS I NS UR ANC E Opi ni on o f t he Cou rt

2 ¶4 After fil in g its an s w er, Farm ers prop os ed tha t th e p arti es
s tip ul ate to arb itrat ion, bu t Ms . Mc Gibb on re fu s ed . Fa rme rs the n sought to compel arbitrat ion based on an arbitratio n clau se in Ms . Mc Gibb on’ s pol ic y. Th e d is tric t c ou rt granted Farm ers ’ m otio n
an d d is mi s s ed Ms . Mc Gibb on’ s c om pl ai nt. ¶5 Ms . Mc Gibb o n pe titi one d th is c ou rt f or interl oc ut ory
r e v i e wo f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s o r d e r , a n d w e p r o v i s i o n a l l y g r a nte d revi ews ubje ct to a s ub s eque nt d ete rmi na tion tha t w e h ave juri s d i c ti on ov e r th e a p p e a l

. Fo r re a s on s e xp l a i n e d b e l ow , we conclu de that we lack jurisdic tion and therefore dismiss the appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶6 Be c au s e w e l a c kj u ris di c tion , w e d o no t revi ewthe de c is ion of the district court and no standard of rev iew applies

. AN AL YSI S ¶7 The Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure establish two proc ed ure s thro ugh w hi c h part ie s be fo re the dis tric t c ou rt may s eek appellate rev iew. In order to ch allenge an interlo cutory or der, a party mus t file a petitio n with the appropr iate appellate court. U T AH R. A PP

. P. 5(a) . A challenge to a final or der, o n the ot her hand, may notbe c om me nc ed by fi li ng a p eti tion in the ap pe ll ate c ou rt. R ath er, a p arty w is hi ng t o ap pe alfro m afi na l order must fil e anot ic e of appeal in the district court t hat enter ed the or der. Id. 4(a). ¶8 We conclu de that M s. McGib bo n has s atisfied the requirements of neither of these pro cedures. Bec ause s he is challen ging a fi nal o rder , we may not hear her case as an interlo cu to rya p p e a l

. An d b e c a u s e s h e f a i l e d to f i l e a ti m e l y n ot i ce of appeal in the district court, we may not hear the case as an appeal of a f i n a l or d e r. W e th e re f or e l a c k j u ri s d i c ti on a n d m u s t d i s m i ss Ms. McGibb on’s appeal.
I. T HE D IS TR ICTCOURT’ SORD ER WASFIN AL ¶9 In Powell v. Cannon , w e h el d th at w he n adi s trict cou rt

or ders a stay o f litigatio n pending the completion of arbitr ation, t he

or der is not final if the court r etains ju risdiction to r esolve any remaining issu es af t e r the conclus ion of arbitr ation pr oceedings. 2008 U T 1 9 , ¶ 18, 179 P.3d 799. In Zions Management Services v. Reco rd, how ever, w e c la rifie d th at i f the onl y is s ue be fo re th e c ou rt is whether to compel arbitrat ion, an order compelling arbitrat ion is “a final dec ision bec ause it effec tive ly end[s ] the contro ver sy between the parties and [leaves] no c laims pending before the di s tric t c ou rt.” 20 13 UT36 , ¶ 26 , 30 5 P. 3d 10 62(i nte rna l quo tati on marks omitt ed).Cite as: 2015 UT 3 Opi ni on o f t he Cou rt

3 ¶ 1 0 I nt h i s c a s e , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i s m i s s e d M s

. M c G i b b o n’ s la w s ui t w he n i t c om pe ll ed arb itra tion

. It di d notreta in j uri s di c tion over th e p r o ceedi ngs be c au s e th ere re ma in ed nothi ng l eft f or it t o resolv e once arbitr ation w as finis hed. The or der co mpelling arb itra tion

w as the ref ore afi na l ord er u nd er Zio ns M a nage ment

. ¶11 Be c au s e th e d is tric t c ou rt’s orde r was final , w e c annot

rev ie wi t o ni n te rl oc u to rya p p e a l

. T h i s i s a p p a re n t fro mth e p lain language of the r ule gov erning inter locutor y appeals, whi ch allows parties to initiate an appeal by petitio ningthe appellate courtonly when they seek “[a]n ap peal from an interlo cutory or der.” U T A H R. A PP

. P. 5(a)

. ¶12 Th is c onc lu s ion

is fu rthe r s up porte d b y ou r pre c ed ent. In C l a rk v . A rch er, we held that rules 3 and 4, not rule 5, “pro vide the procedural mechanis m for a part y to appeal a f i na l or der. When a dis tr ict court has entere d a final j udgment [or o ther final or der], parties to the litigat ion are bound to follow the pro cedural requirements of [rules 3 a nd 4 ] in s eeking appellate rev iew.” 2010 UT 57, ¶ 9, 242 P.3d 758. ¶13 The lawis c lear: M s. McGib bon could notappeal the district court’ s fin al order by following the r e q ui r ements of rule 5. Th e que s tion

, then, is w he the r he r fi li ngs s ati s fi ed the requi rem ents of rules 3 and 4. We address this question below.
II. FIL INGA P ET IT IONFOR IN TE RL OCUT ORY A P P EA L WIT H T HE S UP RE ME C OURTD OESNOTS AT IS FY

RULES 3 AND 4 ¶14 Ru le s 3 an d 4 of the Uta h Ru le s of Ci vil P roc ed ure m ake clear that an appeal fro m a final or der may not be heard unless the ap pe ll ant f il ed a n otic e of ap pe alw ith the di s tric t c ou rt w ith in thi rty days of the order’ s entry

. The “[f] ailure of an appellant to t ake any step other than the timely fili ng of a not ice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal,” U T A H R. A PP

. P. 3(a), but the failure of an ap pe ll ant to fil e anot ic e of ap pe al pre vents the ap pe ll ate c ou rt from ta ki n g j u ri s d i c ti on

of th e c ase. Pro ws wo o d, In c. v . Mo unta in Fue l Suppl y Co. , 676 P.2d 952, 955 (Utah 1984) (“It is axio matic in this jurisdi ction that failure t o timely per fect an appeal is a j urisdic tional failure requiring dismiss al of the appeal.”), sup ers eded in p a rt o n o th er gro unds by

pro ced ura l rul e , U T A H R. A PP

. P. 3, a s re cogni z ed in Clark v. Ar che r , 2010 UT 57, ¶ 14, 242 P.3d 758. ¶15 In ap pl ying t his ru le , w e n ote th at th e c ap tion on ac ou rt fi li ng i s notdi s pos iti v e. “W he n d ete rmi ni ng w he the r a n otic e of ap pe alis s uf

fi c ie nt, w e l ook to th e s ub s tanc e of the not ic e— not its caption.” Cedar S urg ery Ct r. , L. L.C. v. Bo nell i , 2004 UT 58, ¶ 12, 96 P.3d 911. If an app ellant files an incorrectly captioned document thatM C G I B B ON v. F ARM ERS I NS UR ANC E Opi ni on o f t he Cou rt

4 “oth erw is e c om pl ie [s ] w ith the c ont ent an d s ervi c e requi rem ents of rule 3,” and does so within the deadlines set by rule 4, the “misd esignation of the appeal . . . [is] harmles s.” Id. Under such

c irc um s tanc es , th e a pp el la te c ou rt may take j uri s di c tion of the c as e. ¶16 Bu t in

thi s c as e, Ms . Mc Gibbon did not fi le a n otic e of appeal with the district court, corr ectly captioned or other wis e. The appellant in Ceda r Sur

ge ry satisfi ed the re quirements of rules 3 and 4 by filing a copy of its petitio n for per miss io n t o appeal in the district court as well as in the appellate court. Id. ¶¶ 5, 11. But Ms . Mc Gibb on d id notfi le a cop y of he r pe titi on i n th e d is tric t c ou rt; in de ed , s he fi le d nothi ng at al l in the di s tric t c ou rt b etw een the entry of the c ou rt’s fi na l ord er a nd the thi rty- da y de ad li ne

. ¶17 Th e only noti c e th e d is tric t c ou rt rec ei ved of Ms. McGibb on’s a p p e a l was a routine form lett er sent by t he supreme court to the district courtafter s he filed her petitio n. Al tho ugh th e l an gu age of rul e 3 is notentire ly c le ar a s to w he the r a document that is in the r ecord but notfiled by the appellant can

c ons titu te anot ic e of ap pe al , w e thi nk the be tter re ad in g of the text is tha t it c annot —th at the noti c e of app ea l mu s t be a d oc um ent fil ed bythe ap pe ll ant an d n ot m erel y a l ette r s ent by the ap pe ll ate c ou rt. In any c as e, the s up rem e c ou rt’s le tter i n this proc eed in g c ou ld not serve as a not ice of appeal bec ause it does not contain all the information required by rule 3. Spec ific ally, it doe s not “specif y the party or parties tak ing the appeal,” and it do e s no t “designate t he judgment or o rder . . . appealed from.” U T A H R. A PP

. P. 3(d)

. ¶18 We ther efore conclu de that Ms. McGibb on has not filed a not ic e of ap pe alan d th at w e l ac k j urisd ic tion to c ons id er h er c as e. Had sh e filed a copy of her inter loc ut o r y p etitio n in the district court, we could have tr eated it as a notice of appeal if it satisfied the requirements of r ules 3 an d 4. SeeCeda r Sur ge ry, 2004 UT 5 8 , ¶ 11. But becau se sh e failed to file anything in the district cour t that satisfi ed those requirements, her case is d isposed of by our holding in Cla rk v. Ar che r : the failure t o file a not ice of appeal in the dis tr ict

c ou rt “c annotbe c orrec ted bythe erro ne o us fil in g of a p eti tion

fo r interlo cutory appeal” in the appellat e court. 2010 UT 57, ¶ 13, 242 P.3d 758.
CONC LUSION ¶19 Ms. McGibb on’s appeal is therefore dism iss ed.