I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO
P E NNY OS UNA, P lain tiff /A p p e llan t,
v . W A L -M A R T S T O R E S , IN C
. , a D elaw are corpor at i on; SA M ’ S C L U B , an oper at i ng s e g m e n t o f

W A L -M A R T S T O R E S , IN C ., D efen dan t s/A pp el l ees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- C V 2006- 0039

DEPA RTM ENT B O P I N I O N

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF PI M A C OU NTY

C aus e N o. C
- 20014319 H onor abl e C hr i s t opherB r ow ni ng, J udge H onor abl e C arm i ne C ornel i o, J udge

DI SM I SS ED
S h u g a r tTh o ms o n & K i l r o y , P
. C. B yM artyH arp er, R u d o lph J. G erb er, G aryD
. A ns el , K el l yJ
. Fl ood, A n d re w S . Ja c o b , an d N a talia G a rre tt
St ept oe & J ohns on B yB e n n e tt E v a n C o o p e r, M o n ica G o e b e l, and S t even D
. W heeles s P h o e n ix A t t orney s forPl ai nt i ff/A ppel l ant

P h o e n ix A t t orney s forD efe ndant s / A ppel l ees

FEB - 8 200 7 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWO2

B R A M M E R , J udge. ¶1 A p p ell an t Pe n n yO su n a a p p ea ls from the tri al co u rt ’s g ran t o f th e a p p ell ee s’, W al
- M ar tSt or es, Inc
. and Sam’s C l ub ( col l ect i vel y , W al
- M art ) , m ot i on t o di s m i s s and
as sert s the courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng herl eave t o amend hers econd a m ended
c o m p lain t. B e c a u se w e lac k ju risd ictio n , w e d ism iss th e a p p e a l. Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur alBackg r ound ¶2 I n Sept ember2001, B r i an Thacker , St aci T hacke r , Pat r i ci a C arril lo, and T a m e la W yb le f

iled a p u tativ e c las s a c tio n a g a in st W a l-M a rt. T h e c o m p lain t alle g e d W a lM ar thad “f

or c[e d] Pl ai nt i ffs and the C l as s t o w or k off- t he- cl ock,
. . . notpa[i d] t hem for tim e w o rk e d d u rin g m e a l a n d re st b re a k s[ ,] a n d
. . . n o t p ro v id [ e d ] th e m w ith su b stitu te p a id
m eal and br eak pe r i ods
. ” The com pl ai ntp led fiv e cause s of ac t i on: br eac h of w r i t t en empl oym entagr eement , br eac h of or al contr act , quantum m erui t , r es t i tut i on, and br eac h of th e im p lie d c o v e n a n t o f g o o d f a ith a n d f

a ird e a lin g . ¶3 W a l- M a rt f ile d a m o tio n to d is m is s p u rs u a n t to R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ), A ri z . R . C iv . P ., 16 A
. R
. S. , Pt
. 1, asserti n g the st atut e of l i m i t at i ons had run on the cl ai m s al l eged byt he T hacke r s and C ar i l l o. W al
- M artal s o ar gued i t s empl oy ee ha ndbook and pol i ci es di d not
cons t i tut e a w r i t t en co nt r actand the compl ai ntfai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m forbr eac h of the i m pl i ed cove n an t o f g o o d fai t h and fa i rdeal i ng. T he tr i al courtgr ant ed the mot i on, di s m i s s i ng al l of the Thacker s’ a n d C ar i l l o’ s cl ai m s , and W ybl e’ s cl ai m s forbr eac h of
w ritten e m p lo ym e n t ag re e m e n t a n d b re a c h o f th e im p lied c o v e n a n t o f g o o d f a ith a n d f

a ir3

deal i ng. T he courtdeni ed t h e pl ai nt i ffs ’ s ubs equentm ot i ons forr econs i der at i on and “cl ar i fi cat i on, ” as w el l as t hei rr eques tfor cert i fi cat i on of t he j udgm ent forappea l pur s uant to R u le 5 4 (b ), A ri z . R . C iv . P ., 1 6 A .R .S ., P t. 2
. ¶4 T he tr i al courtgr ant ed W ybl e’s s ubs equentr eques tforl eave t o amend t he compl ai nt, buti nform ed W ybl e s he w oul d notbe perm i t t ed t o “r es urr ectanycl ai m w hi ch [ th e trial c o u rt] h a [ d ] d ism iss e d .” T h e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t o m itt e d th e T h a c k e rs a n d C a rillo
as plai n t i ffs and adde d PennyO s una as a pl ai nt i ff. A s econd a m ended c om pl ai nt , fi l ed p u rsu a n t to stip u latio n , o m itt e d W yb le, l e a v in g O su n a a s th e so le p lain tiff , an d a lleg e d W a lM ar thad br eac hed “a n i m pl i ed- i n- l aw ” con tr actw i t h O s una and the cl as s , and i ncl uded
c la im s o f q u a n tu m m e ru it a n d re s titu tio n . ¶5 O s una fi l ed a mot i on forcl as s cert i fi cat i on i n O ct ober2003. A ft erext ens i ve br i efi ng and di s covery , t he tr i al cour tdeni ed the m ot i on, s t at i ng t he s econd a m ended compl ai ntcont ai ned “no s epar at e cl ai m forcontr act. . . that w o u ld r emove i ndi vi dual i zed
r evi ew of the fa ct s and l aw . R ather , t her e exi s t s onl yt hatqu asi-co n tr ac t w hi ch ca n be im p li ed b ya C our tw i t hi n t he r eal m of an unj us tenr i chmentcl ai m . ” The cour tal s o not ed O s una’ s cl ai m s for resti tut i on and quantum m erui tdi d notdes cr i be s epar at e cl ai m s , but in s te a d a s s e rt e d o n ly th e re m e d ya n d m e a s u re o f d a m a g e s f

o r u n ju s t e n ri c h m e n t. ¶6 O s una then r eques t ed l eave t o agai n amend her compl ai nt , s t at i ng s he i nt ended t o “cl ar i f[y ] ” herbr eac h of contr actcl ai m byi ncl udi ng cl ai m s for br eac h of both an i m pl i edi n- fac tcontr actand an i m pl i ed- i n- l aw contr act . O s una al s o s ought t o add a cl ai m “undert heA s t hi s courtr ece nt l ynot ed i n G ra n d v . N a c c h io , 214 A r i z. 9, n. 4, 147 P. 3d 763, 772 1 n . 4 (A p p . 2 0 0 6 ),

A s i s t he pra cti ce i n t hi s di vi s i on of the courtof appe al s , one m em ber o f t he pan el schedu l ed t o hear the argu m ent pr epares a 4 A r i zona W age A ct , A
. R
. S. § 23- 350 et s eq. , ” and a cl ai m as s ert i ng W al
- M arthad vi ol at ed A
. R
. S. § 23- 202. T he tr i al court deni ed O s una l eave t o amend, s t at i ng s he w as “s eeki ng t o, in p a rt, rev isit th e iss u e o f th e c o n tra c t cla im s m a d e e a rlier ” a n d p re se n t c laim s “ th a t co u ld h av e been pl ed much ear l i er . ” The cour tal s o deni ed O s una’ s r eques tt o cert i fyforappea l its ru lin g o n c la s s c e rtific a tio n . S u b se q u e n tly , p u rsu a n t to stip u latio n , O su n a m o v e d to dism iss h er u nj us tenr i chmentcl ai m underR ul e 41( a) , A r i z. R
. C i v. P. , 16 A
. R
. S. , Pt
. 1, stat ing the d ism issal w o u ld “f u ll yd ispo se o f [ h er] S ec o n d A m en d ed C o m p lai n t. ” T h e c o u rt gr ant ed the m ot i on and ent er ed fi nal j udgm enti n favorof W al
- M art . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. ¶7 B e f

o re O su n a f

iled h e r o p e n in g b rie f

, W a l-M a rt f

iled a m o tio n in th is c o u rt to di s m i s s O s una’ s appea l of the tr i al cour t ’ s cl as s cert i fi cat i on rul i ng. W al
- M art ar gued O s una had vo l un t ari l ydis m i ssed her unjustenri chm ent cl ai m , the sole s ubj ectof the cl ass
ce rt ifi ca ti o n m o ti o n , an d thu s lack ed stan d ing to app ea l the ruli n g . W e g ran ted W al-M art’s
m ot i on i n M ar ch 2006 and di r ect ed O s una t o fi l e heropeni ng br i ef. D i s cus s i on ¶8 O s una’ s vol unt arydi s m i s s al of hercompl ai ntr ai s es the ques t i on of w hether
w e h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r th is a p p e a l. O u r d ra f t d e c isio n , d istrib u ted to th e p a r ti e s in ant i ci pat i o n of or al ar gum ent , pr opos ed thatw e di s m i s s O s una’ s appea l beca us e w e l ack 1dr aftdeci s i on, su bjectt o r evi s i on aft erar gum entand confe r e n c e , t h a ti s d i s s e mi n a t e d t o c o u n s e l f o rth e p a r t i e s , a nd th e o th e r p a n e l m e m b e rs , in a d v a n c e o f a rg u m e n t. T he part i es di d notr ai s e thi s i s s ue. W e, how ever , ar e obl i gated to ex am i ne our 2 ju ri s d ic tio n . C or dova v. C i t y of Tucs on , 1 5 A ri z. A p p . 4 6 9 , 4 7 0 , 4 8 9 P
. 2 d 7 2 7 , 7 2 8 (19 7 1 ).

5 ju risd ictio n . W e g ra n ted O su n a ’s s u b se q u e n t re q u e st to v a c a te o ra l ar g u m e n t a n d su b m it

2
s uppl ement al br i efi ng on t he ques t i on of ourj ur i s di ct i on. ¶9 “[ T ] he r i ghtt o appea l exi s t s onl ybyfor ce of s t atut e. ” Cor d o v a v . C i t y of T u cs on , 1 5 A ri z . A p p . 4 6 9 , 4 7 0 , 4 8 9 P .2 d 7 2 7 , 7 2 8 (1 9 7 1 ). S e c tio n 1 2 -2 1 0 1 , A .R .S ., governs ourappel l at e j ur i s di ct i on, and s ubs ect i on ( B ) perm i t s an appe al onl yfr om a “f i nal j udgm ent . ” R ul e 41( a) , A r i z. R
. C i v. P. , 16 A
. R
. S. , Pt
. 1, governs vol unt arydi s m i s s al s and
s t at es s uch di s m i s s al s ar e w i t hout pr ej udi ce “[u] nl es s otherw i s e st at ed i n t he not i ce oror der
o f d ism iss a l.” N e ith e r O su n a ’s m o tio n n o r th e c o u rt’s o rd e r sta ted th e d ism iss a l w a s w ith pr ej udi ce. “G ener al l y , an or der gr ant i ng a vol unt ary di s m i s s al w i t houtpr ej udi ce t o i t s bei ng
r efi l ed i s not an appeal abl e, fi nal j udgm ent . ” G ra n d v . N a c c h io , 214 A r i z. 9, ¶ 12, 147 P. 3d 7 6 3 , 7 6 9 (A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); see a l so R ab bi Jac ob Joseph Sch
. v. P rovi nce o f Mend oza , 425 F. 3d 207, 210 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( “A pl ai nt i ff w ho vol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s es hi s act i on w i t houtpr ej udi ce

‘ m ayr ei ns t at e hi s act i on r egar dl es s of the dec i s i on of t he appel l at e court , [thus , ] perm i t t i ng
a n a p p e a l is c le a rl ya n e n d
- r u n a ro u n d th e f in a l ju d g m e n t ru le .’” ), quot i ng P alm i er iv. D e fa ria , 8 8 F .3 d 1 3 6 , 1 4 0 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ); Mes a v. U ni t ed Stat es , 6 1 F
. 3 d 2 0 , 2 1 (11 th C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ) ( p la in tif

f w h o d is m is s e d c la im w ith o u t p re ju d ic e “ h a d n o th in g to a p p e a l” ).6

¶10 T he tr i al c o u rt ’ s o r d e rg r a n t i ng O s una’ s s t i pul at ed mot i on t o di s m i s s al s o s t at ed the or der“ent er [ed] fi nal j udgm enti n favorof D efe ndant s . ” W e r ej ectO s una’ s cont ent i on thatthi s s t at ementm eans hercompl ai nt w as di s m i s s ed w i t h pr ej udi ce. A n or derof di s m i s s al pu rs uan tt o R ule 41, A ri z. R
. C i v. P
. , 16 A
. R
. S
. , P t . 1, i s w i t ho ut pr ej ud i ce un l ess “otherw i se
s peci fi ed. ” See 9 C h a rl e s A la n W ri g h t & A rt h u r R . M ille r, Federal P ract i ce an d P rocedu re § 2 3 6 7 a t 3 1 8 -1 9 (2 d e d . 1 9 9 5 ) (“ If th e c o u rt’s o rd e r is s ilen t o n [ w h e th e r d ism iss a l is w ith
o r w ith o u t p rejud ice], the dism issal is w ith o u t p rejud ice.”). T h e p rop er m etho d fo r a c o u rt t o s peci fyt hata di s m i s s al i s w i t h pr ej udi ce i s t o s t at e i ti n pl ai n l anguage ; s i m pl yus i ng t he
w o rd s “ f in a l ju d g m e n t” is in a d e q u a te b e c a u s e th a t p h ra s e is s u bj e c t to in te rp re ta tio n . A d ism iss a l w ith o u t p re

ju d ice is “ f

in a l” in so f

a r a s th e trial c o u rt n o lo n g e r h a s “ ju risd ictio n to gr ant aff i r m at i ve re l i ef t o t he part i es , ” C raw f ord v. C raw

f ord , 20 A r i z. A pp. 599, 600, 514 P .2 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 1 (1 9 7 3 ), a n d m a yb e “ f in a l” f o r th e p u rp o s e o f

a n a w a rd o f

a tto rn e yf

e e s , s ee C a ll a nan v. Sun Lakes H om eow ner ’s A s s ’ n N

o. 1, I nc. , 1 3 4 Ar i z . 3 3 2 , 3 3 7 , 6 5 6 P. 2d 621, 626 ( A pp. 1982)
. T he F i fth C i r cui t C our t of A ppeal s exami ned a s i tuat i on s i m i l art o t he one befor e us i n Mars hal lv. Kans as C i t y Souther n R ai lw ay C o. , 3 7 8 F
. 3 d 4 9 5 , 5 0 1 (5 th C ir
. 2004)
. Th e r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s o r d e rg r a n t i n g p l a i n t i f f ’ s Rul e 4 1 , Fe d
. R. Ci v . P. , m ot i on d esc ri b ed the m o ti o n as o n e f o r “‘a f inal jud g m en t w ith p rejud ic e p u rsua n t t o R u le 54 (b), [F ed
. R
. C iv. P., ]’” an d stat ed the o rde r w as “ ‘a f inal jud g m en t i n fa v o r of the d ef en d an ts. ’” Id
. (em p h asis rem o v ed ). T h e p lain tiff ’s m o tio n se e k in g v o lu n tar yd ism iss a l, h o w e v e r, d id nots t at e i ts oughtdi s m i s s al w i t h pr ej udi ce; i ndeed , i tdi d nots peci fyw hetheri ts oughtS o m e a u tho ri tysu g g ests w e m ayco n side r th e inten t of the p arti es a n d the tri al co u rt 3 to d e te rm in e w h e th e r a v o lu n ta ry d is m is s a l is w ith p re ju d ic e . See Concha v. London , 62 F. 3d 1 4 9 3 , 1 5 0 8 -0 9 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (tre a ti n g d ism iss a l w ith o u t p re ju d ice a s d ism iss a l w ith pr ej udi ce be caus e i tw as “cl ear t hat t he par t i es i nt ended t hat t he [pl ai nt i ffs ] be aff or ded the r i ghtt o appea l ” and pl ai nt i ff ha d “abs ol ut el y not hi ng t o gai n by fi l i ng a vol unt arydi s m i s s al w ith o u t p re

ju d ice ” ); A gf

a- G evae r t

, A
. G
. v. A
. B
. D i ck Co. , 7 7 0 F . S u p p . 4 4 1 , 4 4 4 (N .D . Ill
. 1991) ( fi ndi ng di s m i s s al w as w i t h pr ej udi ce a l t hough j udge “di d not s t at e expl i ci t l yw hether the w i thdr aw al [of pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m ] w as w i t h pr ej udi ce” beca us e “the j udge’ s comm ent s and th o se o f c o u n se l f

o r bo th p a rties d u rin g th e in stru c tio n s c o n f e re n c e re f

lec t an in ten tio n b ya ll conce rned thatt he w ithdr aw al be w i t h pr ej udi ce” )
. E ven i f w e w er e t o adopta s i m i l ar appr oach, not hi ng i n t he r ecor d cl ear l yi ndi cat es W al
- M arti n tend ed for the s t i pul at ed di s m i s s al t o enabl e O s una t o appea l , and O s una does not ar gue a di s m i s s al w i t houtpr ej udi ce “coul d s erve no conc ei vabl e purpos e. ” C oncha , 62 F. 3d at1509. W e n o te so m e c o u rt s, in an alog o u s circu m stan ce s, h av e f o u n d juri sd ict ion h ad v ested 4 w h e n th e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s o th e rw is e w o u ld h a v e b a rr e d th e p la in tif f ’s c la im
. See Fass et v. D el ta Kappa E

ps i l on ( N ew Y ork) , 8 0 7 F .2 d 1 1 5 0 , 1 1 5 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 6 ); C ar rv. G r ace , 516 F .2 d 5 0 2 , 5 0 3 n .1 (5 th C ir. 1 9 7 5 ). T h e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s, h o w e v e r, is n o t ju risd ictio n a l. 7 d is m is s a l w ith o r w ith o u t p re ju d ic e . I d. R el y i ng on “the expr es s l anguage ” of Rul e 41, the Fi fth Ci r c u i t d e t e r mi n e d t h e o r d e r was a d i s mi s s a l wi t h o u t p r e j u d i c e b e c a u s e i tdi d not
s peci fyi tw as w i th pr ej udi ce. I d. 3 ¶11 M or eover , O s una di d not as k t he cour t t o di s m i s s hercompl ai ntw i t h pr ej udi ce. See Mc Ke n z i e v . Da v e n p o r t - Ha r r is Fu n e r a lHo me , 834 F. 2d 930, 934- 35 ( 11th C i r . 1987) (“ T h e stip u latio n o f

d ism iss a l f

iled b yth e p a rties d id n o t in c lu d e th e m a g ic w o rd s: w ith pr ej udi ce. U nderR ul e 41( a) ( 1) , [Fed. R
. C i v. P. , ] w her e t he st i pul at i on does nots t at e that the d ism issal is w ith p rejud ice, i t m u st be co n side red w ith o u t prejud ice.”). T hus , w e dec l i ne t o int erpr ett he tr i al cou rt ’s o rd er t o g rantrel i ef O suna d i d n ot expl i ci t l yrequest . B ecause th e c o u rt’s g ra n t o f

O su n a ’s m o tio n to d ism iss h e r s o le r e m a in in g c laim is n o t ap p e a lab le
u n d e r § 1 2 -2 1 0 1 (B ), w e lac k ju risd ictio n o v e r th is a p p e a l. 4T h u s , if

a p a rt yf a ils to ra is e it a s a n a f

f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n s e , it is w a iv e d
. S e e T ru jil lo v . T ru jil lo , 75 A r i z. 146, 148, 252 P. 2d 1071, 1072 ( 1953) ( “The st atut e o f li m it at i ons . . . i s per s onal a n d m a yb e w a iv e d
. I t w ill b e a ss u m e d th a t a [ d e f e n d a n t] w h o d o e s n o t p lea d th e sta tu te w hen s ued does not des i r e i t s pr ot ect i on. ”) ; A r i z. R
. C i v. P. 8( c) , 16 A
. R
. S. , Pt
. 1 ( s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s aff

i r m at i ve def

ense). W e w i l l notadopta rul e thatr equi r es us t o r ai s e an a f f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se o n a d e f

e n d a n t’s b e h a lf. M o re o v e r, “a n a p p e llate c o u rt . . . is p o o rly s i tuat ed t o l i t i gat e and t o deci de .
. . w hethera s t atut e of l i m i t at i on has run t o the poi ntof b a rrin g a n a c tio n ; w e c a n n o t, fo r e x a m p le, ru le o u t th e p o ss ib le e x iste n c e o f to lli n g e v e n ts w hi ch w oul d notappea ri n t he r ecor d on appea l
. ” Mes a v. U ni t ed Stat es , 6 1 F .3 d 2 0 , 2 2 n .6 (11 th C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ). A s W al
- M art corr ect l y poi nt s out , O s una has notunequi vocal l yabandone d herr i ght 5 to re f ile h e r ac tio n . S h e sta ted in h e r su p p lem e n tal b rie f th a t sh e “ re se rv e s th e rig h t to re f ile onl yt o the ext entt hatt hi s C our tfi n d s herabandonmenti s i neff ect i ve and thati tcannot r evi ew [thi s m att er ] beca us e s he r et ai ns a r i ghtt o r efi l e. ” A l t houg h “thi s pr ocedur e r ai s es i nt er es t i ng issue s of appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on, ” O ’ B oyl e v. Ji

f f y Lube I nt er nat i onal

, I nc. , 866 F. 2d 88, 92 ( 3d C i r . 1989) , w e nee d notr es ol ve thos e i ssu es h ere bec aus e w e conc l ude O su n a ’s a ttem p t to u n ilate ra lly a b a n d o n h e r ri g h t to re f ile d o e s n o t co n v e rt h e r d ism iss a l in to one w i th pr ej udi ce. 8 ¶12 In h e r su p p lem e n tal b rie f , h o w e v e r, O su n a p u rp o rts to “ a b a n d o n [ ] a ll righ ts to
r efi l e thi s act ion , ” and s ugges t s t hi s r ender s the tr i al cour t ’ s di s m i s s al of hercompl ai nt “unequi vocal l yfi nal a n d co m pl et e. ” She ci t es s ever al cas es i n w hi ch fe der al cour t s have 5 d e ter m in e d sim ilar a b a n d o n m e n t co n v e rts a n o rd e r th a t is n o t f in a l in to a f

in a l, ap p e a lab le jud g m en t. S ee Ti er nan v. D evoe , 9 2 3 F .2 d 1 0 2 4 , 1 0 3 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) (f in d in g a p p e llate ju risd ictio n e sta b lish e d w h e re p lain tiff s, “ th ro u g h lette r b rie f

s,” re n o u n c e d “ a n yin ten tio n to tak e f u rth e r a c tio n a g a in st th e . . . D e f e n d a n ts” ); Scar bor ough v. P er ez , 870 F. 2d 1079, 1082 ( 6th C i r . 1989) (

j ur i s di ct i on pr operw h ere ap p el l antabandone d nonfi nal cl ai m ator al
a rg u m e n t); O ’B oyle v. Ji f f y Lube I

nt ’ l , I nc. , 866 F. 2d 88, 92 ( 3d C i r . 1989)I n Ti er nan v. D evoe , 923 F. 2d 1024, 1028, 1031 ( 3d C i r . 1991) , pl ai nt i ffs appea l ed 6 f r o m a n o r d e re nf

or c i ng a s e t t l e me n ta g r e e me n ti n f a v o ro f t h r e e o f f o u rd e f e n d a n t s . By di s m i s s i ng cl ai m s agai ns tt he fourth de fenda ntw i t houtpr ej udi ce, pl ai nt i ffs r ai s ed a ju ri s d ic tio n a l q u e s tio n s im ila r t o th e o n e b e f o re u s . I d. I n Scar bor ough v. P er ez , 870 F. 2d 1079, 1081 ( 6t h C i r . 1989) , t he pl ai nt i ff appea l ed t he t r i al cour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent i n favorof one of

t w o defe ndant s aft erobt ai ni ng a def au lt jud g m ent agai ns tt he s econd d e f e n d a n t . T h e a m o u n t o f th e ju d g m e n t, h o w e v e r, h a d n o t yet b e e n d e te rm in e d
. Id
. T he Si xth C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s decl i ned t o addr es s w hether t he t r i al cour t ’ s R ul e 54( b) , Fed. R
. C iv. P
. , cert i fi cat i on i n t he or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entw as pr operbeca us e the p la in tif f h a d a b a n d o n e d h is c la im a g a in s t th e s e c o n d d e f e n d a n t. Id
. at1081- 82. T he pl ai nt i ff i n O ’ B oyl e v. Ji

f f y L u b e Int ’ l

, I nc. , 866 F. 2d 88, 91- 92 ( 3d C i r . 1989) , appea l ed the tr i al cour t ’ s gr antof the def

endant ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s al l butone of hi s cl ai m s . T he pl ai nt i ff then d is m is s e d h is re m a in in g c la im w ith o u t p re ju d ic e . Id
. at92. A lth o u g h claim s p led in the o ri g inal co m p la in t h ad b ee n d ism issed o n W al-M art’s 7 m o tio n , O s u n a ’s a m e n d e d c o m p la in t s u p e rs e d e d h e r p re v io u s c o m p la in ts . See Cam pbel lv. D eddens , 21 A r i z. A pp. 295, 297, 518 P. 2d 1012, 1014 ( 1974) ( “W hen r es pondentfi l ed an a me n d e d c o mp l a i n t , s u c h p l e a d i n g s u p e r s e d e d h i s o r i g i n a l c o mp l a i n twh i c h th e n b e c a me 9 (“ [ U ]n c o n d itio n a l[ ] w ith d ra w [ a l] w ith p re ju d ic e [ in re p ly b ri e f o f u n a d ju d ic a te d ] c la im s . . . rem o v e[ s] an yd o u b t abo u t [ap p ell ate] jurisdicti o n . ”). ¶13 W e dec l i ne t o adopt t hi s appr oach. I n the ca s es O s una ci t es , eac h bei ng pr ocedur al lydi s t i ngui s habl e fr om thi s cas e, the aba ndoned cl ai m s w er e notati s s ue on
a p p e a l. See Ti er nan , 9 2 3 F .2 d a t 1 0 3 1 ; Scar bor ough , 8 7 0 F .2 d a t 1 0 8 1
- 8 2 , O ’B o y le , 866 6 F. 2d at91- 92. I n contr as t , O s una appe al s fr om the tr i al court ’ s deni al of l eave t o amend t he
s ame com pl ai nts he l at erdi s m i s s ed. A nd none of t he ci t ed ca s es addr es s es a s i tuat i on l i ke the one be for e us , w her e t he appe l l antvol unt ar i l yhas di s m i s s ed hi s orherent i r e compl ai nt
w i thoutpr ej udi ce. T he tr i al courtdi d not , on i t s ow n orW al
- M art ’ s m ot i on, di s m i s s anyof the cl ai m s i n O s una’ s s econd a m ended c om pl ai nt . T hus , no cl ai m s r ai s ed i n t hatcompl ai nt
w ere di sm i ssed againstO suna’s w i shes. See, e. g. , C ofi eld v. Sa nd ers , 9 A r i z. A pp. 240, 242, 7f

un ct us officio
. ”)
. B eca us e O s una had di s m i s s ed hers econd a m ended c om pl ai ntw i thout p re ju d ice , w e la c k ju risd ictio n o v e r h e r a p p e a l an d n e e d n o t d e c id e w h e th e r O su n a c o u ld appea l rul i ngs r el at ed t o t he fi r s tcompl ai nthad s he di s m i s s ed hers econd a m ended c om pl ai nt w ith p re ju d ic e . C om

pa re Fors

yth v. H um ana, I nc. , 114 F. 3d 1467, 1474 ( 9th C i r . 1997) (“If a pl ai nt i ff f

ai l s t o i ncl ude di s m i s s ed cl ai m s i n an amended compl ai nt , t he pl ai nt i ff i s deemed to h a v e w a iv e d a n ye rr o r i n th e ru lin g d is m is s in g th e p ri o r c o m p la in t.” ), wi th Dav is v . TXO P r oduct i on C or

p. , 929 F. 2d 1515, 1518 ( 10th C i r . 1991) ( “W e bel i eve t hat a rul e r equi r i ng p lain tiff s w h o f ile a m e n d e d c o m p lain ts to re p l ead clai m s prev io u slyd ism iss e d o n th e ir m e rits i n or dert o pr es erve thos e cl ai m s m er el ys et s a tr ap forun su sp ec ti n g pl ai nt i ffs w i th no co n co m it an t ben ef

itto the o p p o sing p arty . ”) (fo o tno te om itted). 10 451 P. 2d 320, 322 ( 1969) ( “I ti s w el l s ett l ed t hat or di nar i l y a cons ent j udgm ent i s nots ubj ect to a p p e llate re v iew .”); Far m ers I ns . G r oup v. W

or th I ns . C o. , 8 A r i z. A pp. 69, 71, 443 P. 2d 431, 433 ( 1968) ( “I ti s a pr er equi s i t e t o ourappel l at e j ur i s di ct i o n that the appe l l antbe a ‘pa rtyag g ri ev ed ’ bythe ju d g m en t or o rde r fro m w h ich th e a p p ea l i s tak en . ”). ¶14 M or eover , R ul e 41( a) does notperm i ta pl ai nt i ff t o di s m i s s hi s orhercompl ai nt
u n ilate ra llyif

th e a d v e rse p a rtyh a s f

iled e ith e r an a n sw e r or a m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. A di s m i s s al m us ti ns t ead be gr ant ed “pur s uantt o a s t i pul at i on of di s m i s s al s i gned by al l the part i es w ho have a ppear ed i n t he act i on” or “upon or der of t he cour t and upon s uch t erm s and
c o n d iti o n s a s th e c o u rt d e e m s p ro p e r.” F u rth e rm o re , a trial co u rt is n o t re q u ire d to g ra n t a p la in tif f ’s m o tio n to d is m is s . See C hen ey v. Su peri or C ou rt , 144 A r i z. 446, 448, 698 P. 2d 6 9 1 , 6 9 3 (1 9 8 5 ) (“ T h e rig h t to d ism iss a f ter a n a n sw e r h a s b e e n f iled . . . is d isc re tio n a ryw ith the tri al co u rt . ”). A n d a d ef e n d a n t s h o u ld b e g iven the o p p o rtu n ityto arg u e the tr ial co u rt
s h o u ld n o t g ra n t a d is m is s a l w ith p re ju d ic e . See Sc hoolhous e E duc. A i ds , I nc. v. H aag , 145 A ri z. 87 , 90 , 69 9 P
. 2d 13 18 , 13 21 (A pp . 19 85 ) ( i n co nsi deri ng vo l un t arym oti on t o d i sm i ss,11

tr i al cour tm ust “ ex am i ne the fa ct s of [the] cas e t o det erm i ne w hetherpl ai nt i ff’ s di s m i s s al
w o u ld v io late a n yo f

d e f e n d a n t’s su b sta n tial l e g a l rig h ts” ); c f. C ount y of Santa Fe, N

. M
. v. P u b . S e r v . C o . o

f N .M
. , 3 1 1 F. 3d 1031, 1049 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( “[T] her e w i l l be
c irc u m sta n c e s w h e re g ra n tin g a p lain tiff ’s m o tio n to d ism iss w ith p re ju d ice m a ya d v e rse ly af fe ct th e d ef

en d an t. ”). ¶15 O s una al s o ar gues w e may “r evi ew [her appea l ] pur s uantt o R ul e 54( b) , [A r i z. R
. C i v. P. , 16 A
. R
. S. , Pt
. 2] , ” des pi t e the abs ence of the r equi r ed “e xpr es s det erm i nat i on t hat ther e i s no j us t r eas on for del ay ” i n t he tr i al cour t ’ s or dergr ant i ng herm ot i on t o di s m i s s . T he
cas e O s una r el i es on, how ever , does not s ugges t w e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on i n the abs ence of pr operR ul e 54( b) cert i fi cat i on; i t i ns t ead st at es t hat , aft er an appe al i s di s m i s s ed “f orw ant
o f th e re q u isite d e ter m in a tio n ” th e p a rties m a yb e “ a f f o rd e d
. . . an o p p o rtu n ityto a p p lyto the tr i al courtfort he nec essa ry det erm i nat i on. ” A ri zona B an k v. Su

peri or C ou rt , 17 A r i z. A p p . 1 1 5 , 1 1 9
- 2 0 , 4 9 5 P .2 d 1 3 2 2 , 1 3 2 6 -2 7 (1 9 7 2 ); s e e a l s o S t e v e n s v . Me h a g i a n ’s Ho me Fur nis hi ngs , I

nc. , 9 0 A riz
. 4 2 , 4 5 , 3 6 5 P .2 d 2 0 8 , 2 1 0 (1 9 6 1 ); Tarnof f v. Jones , 15 A r i z. A pp. 88, 9 0 , 4 8 6 P. 2 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 ( 1 9 7 1 )
. Be c a u s e Os u n a d o e s n o t a r g u e s h e s h o u l d be af for ded
su ch an o p p o rtu n ityh ere , w e d o n o t add ress this arg u m en t fu rth er. ¶16 L as t l y , r el y i ng on G r and , O s una r eques t s , al t ernat i vel y , t hatw e ac cepts peci al act i on j ur i s di ct i on of t hi s m att erbeca us e i tw oul d “fa vorj udi ci al economy . ” B ut , t he ci r cumst ance s of thatcas e ar e vas t l ydi ffe r en t f rom thos e bef

or e us . T her e, w e ac cept ed
s peci al act i on j ur i s di ct i on i n par tbeca us e a s ubs equentappea l w oul d “i nevi t ab ly raise the12

s ame i s s ues [then] befor e us . ” G r and , 2 1 4 A riz
. 9 , ¶ 2 4 , 1 4 7 P .3 d a t 7 7 2 . T h e trial c o u rt in G r and h a d in c lu d e d R u le 5 4 (b ) l a n g u a g e in its ju d g m e n t. Id
. ¶ 17. A l t hough w e found that
c e rt if ic a tio n im p ro p e r, id
. ¶ 1 9 , it s p re se n c e m a d e it c lea r th e trial co u rt h a d in ten d e d f o r its
or dert o be fi nal
. A nd i n G r a n d , “[t ] he part i es , atthe s ugges t i on of the tr i al court , s t i pul at ed to d ism iss a l w ith o u t p re ju d ice o f th e [ p re v io u sly u n a d

ju d ica ted ] cla im s . . . a n d a p p a re n tly ent er ed into an ag r eementt ol l i ng t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons as t o t hos e cl ai m s . ” I d. ¶ 11. T hos e fa ct or s do notexi s ther e; t hus , w e cannot s ay an appe al r ai s i ng t he s ame i s s ues O s una at t empt s t o as s er tnow i s , foral l pr act i cal purpos es , i nevi t abl e. ¶17 M or eover , unl i ke i n G r and , O suna’s appeal does no trai se i ssues of fi rs t im p re s s io n in A ri z o n a . See i d. ¶ 2 2
. An d , p e r h a p s mo s ti mp o r t a n t l y , t h e d r a f td e c i s i o n we pr ovi ded the part i es i n advanc e of or al argu m enti n G r and h a d “ n o ted , an d d e c lin e d to
a d d re ss , se v e ra l issu e s th e [ a p p e llan t] d id n o t ra ise o n a p p e a l” a n d c o u ld p o ten tiallyra ise in
a s u b s e q u e n t a p p e a l, i d. ¶ 2 4 , a s itu a tio n a b se n t h e re . A d d iti o n a lly , itis s e ttl e d law in A r i zona thatdeni al of l eave t o amend a compl ai nti s a pr op er subj ectfors peci al act i on
re v ie w . Se e D ol l ar A Day Ren t A Car Sy s . , I nc . v . Su peri or C ou rt , 107 A r i z. 87, 89, 482 P. 2d 454, 456 ( 1971)
. O s una i ns t ead di s m i s s ed her compl ai nt w i t hout pr ej udi ce, and gi ves
us n o co m pel l i ng r eas on t o over l ook herpr ocedur al m i s s t ep. T her efor e, i n ourdi s cr et i on,
w e d e c lin e s p e c ia l a c tio n ju ri s d ic tio n . See Astor ga v. W i ng , 211 A r i z. 139, ¶ 13, 118 P. 3d 1103, 1106 ( A pp. 2005)
. I n ourdi s cr et i on, w e denyW al
- M art ’ s r eques tforat t orneyfee s on
a p p e a l m a d e p u rs u a n t to A .R .S . § 1 2 -3 4 1 .0 1 (A ).13

¶18 A p p e a l d is m is s e d
.

J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

PE T E R J
. E C K E R ST R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge

PH I L I P G
. E SPIN O SA , J udge