### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 7, 2002

Session

ELIZABETH ANN BAKER v. MERROL H YDE, ET AL 

### . Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sumner County No. 2001C-110 Thomas E. Gray, Chancellor

No. M2001-01752-COA-R3-CV - Filed August 7, 2002

Elizabe th Ann Baker (“Plaintiff”) is a school teacher. Plaintiff sued Steve Shepard, the principal of her school, a

nd Sheila Pr

yor, ano ther tea

cher. Pla intiff al so su ed Me rrol Hyde, the director of Sumner County Schools, and Jeff Helbig, the school system’s assistant director. Plaintiff claimed the four def

endants ( “Defe

ndants”) were lia

ble for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. In addition to her Answer, Pryor filed a Counter-Complaint against Plaintiff for slander. All four Defendants filed Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) Motions to Dismiss. The Trial Court granted Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss but did notaddress Pryor’s pending CounterComplaint. Plain tif

f appeals. Because the judgment appealed fr om is not a final judgment under Tenn. R. App. P. 3, we dismiss and remand.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed;

Case Remanded.

D. M ICHAEL S WINEY , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which B EN H. C ANTRELL , P.J., and T HOMAS W. B ROTHERS , S P .J., joined.
James L. Harris, Nashville, Tennessee, for the A ppellant, Elizabeth Ann Baker.

William R. Wright and Leah May Dennen, Gallatin, Tennessee, for the Appellees, Merrol Hyde, Jeff Helbig and Steve Shepard.
Roger A. Sindle, Hendersonville, Tennessee, for the Appellee , Sheila Pryor.1 Rule 10 of the Ru les of the Te nnessee Cou rt of Ap peals pro vides:

The Co urt, with the concurr ence of alljudges pa rt i ci pa t i ng i n the ca s e, may af fi rm , reverse or modi fy the ac ti ons of t he tr ial court

by memorandum opinion when a formal op i ni on wo ul d h av e n o p r ec ed en t i al va l ue

. Wh en a case is decide d by memorandum opini on it shal l be des ig nated “ MEMORANDUM OP INI ON ,” sha ll not be publi shed, and shal l not be ci ted or

rel ied on f

or any r eason i n a subs equent unrelat ed case.

2 The record on appeal shows Plai ntif f did not f

ile an amended com plaint , but for simplici ty’s s ake, we will refer t o the Complaint, as amended, as the “ Comp laint .”
-2- MEMORAN

DUM OPINION 1

In March 2001, Plai ntiff, a sixth grade science teacher at White House Middle Sch ool , sued the Defendants. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged Defendants were liable to her for compensatory and punitive damages for malicious harassment under Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21- 701 and intentional and negligen

t inflictio n of emotional distre ss. Plaintiff alleged Shepard and Pryor conspire d against Plaintiff because Plaintiff had supported a teacher-assistant who had made an unrelated

complaint against Sh epar d. Plaintiff further alleged in her Complaint that Shepard and Pryor obtained assistance and pa rticipat ion from st

udents in m aking Plaintiff’s w orking co nditions extremely difficult so that Plaintiff

would either quit or be fired. Plaintiff also alleged in her Complaint that when she repo

rted the se proble

ms to Hyde and Helbig, she was given no assistance. Plaintiff further alleged Helbig threatened to terminate her employment when she

reporte d the har

assment to

him.
Shepard, Helbig and Hyde each filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) Motion to Dismiss. These three defendants jointly filed a Memorandum of Law in support of their Moti ons to Dismiss. The remaining defendant, Pryor, filed an Answer and a Counter-Complaint in which she claimed Plaintiff was liable to her for slander for statements Plaintiff made on the loc al television news about Pryor’s character. Pryo

r also filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) Motion to Dismiss and adopted the other defendants’ Memorandum of Law. The

reafte r, Plaintif f filed a Motion to Am

end seek ing to amend her Complaint to add a claim for civil conspiracy to maliciously int erfe re with Plaintiff’s employm ent. Plaintiff

also conc eded, in h

er Motion

to Amend, that her

claim for

malic iou s harassm ent was n ot a viabl e claim.

The Trial Court, in July 2001, entered an Order gra nting Plaint iff’s Motion to Amend, thereby allowing Plaintiff to add her claim for civil conspiracy. The Trial Cour t also gr anted Defend ants’ Motions to D ismiss. 2 In this Order, the Trial Cou rt dism issed Plaintiff’s claims of intentional and negl igent inflict ion of emo tional dist ress and the newly -added civil consp iracy c laim, finding Plaintiff’ s Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be gr anted. The Trial Courtalso dismis sed Plaint iff’s cl aim

for malic ious harassment stating, in its Order, Plaintiff conceded at the motion hearing that she no longer was pursuing that claim. The Orde r, howev er, did notaddressPryor’s Co

unter-Co mplain t against Plaintiff. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. The technical record on appeal shows Plain

tiff did not file an A

nswer to Pryor’s Counter--3-

Complaint until after she filed he r Notice of Appeal. Based upon the record be fore us, the Trial Court never adjudicated Pryor’s Counter-Complaint against Plaintiff.

Upon our review of the record in its entirety, and although none of the parties raised this as an issue on appeal, we conclude the Order a ppealed from is not a final judgment for purposes of Tenn. R. App. P. 3, which pr ovides in r

elevant part tha t:
Except as otherwise permitted

in Rule 9 and in Rule 54.02 Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, if multiple parties or multiple clai ms for relief are involved in an action, any order that adjudicates fewer than all the claim s or the r

ights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not enfor

ceable or appealable and is subject to revision at any time before entry o f a fina l judgment a djudicat ing all the

claims, r ights, and liabi lities of a

ll partie s.

No applica

tion for p ermission

to take a n interloc uto ry appeal pursuant

to Tenn. R. App. P. 9 was filed. Likewise, there was no express direction for entry of judgment by the Trial Courtor a dete

rmination that ther e was no j ust reas on for de lay, as r equired in Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. Since the judgment appealed from does not adjudicate all the claims, rights, and liabilities of all the parties, namely Pryor’s Counter-Complaint against Plaintiff, and, therefore, is not appealable, this appeal is dismissed and the case is remanded for further proceedings, as necessary, to resolve the rema inin g claims of the part

ies. Costs o f the app eal are taxed to t

he Appellant, Elizabeth Ann Baker, and her surety.

___________________________________ D. MICHAEL SWINEY, JUDGE