# FILED
October 28, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appe llate Court C lerk IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON
MARGARET MARIE B ARNES, )

) Pla intiff/A pp ella nt, ) Shelby Circuit No. 83304 T.D.

) VS. ) Appeal No. 02A01-9801- CV-00011 ) BRIGHT GLADE CONVALESCENT ) HOME, LOUIS MONTESI and ) DEBORAH HENDERSON, ) ADMINISTRATOR AD LITEM OF ) THE ESTATE OF LOUIS M ONTESI, ) DECEASED, ) ) Defendants/Appell ees. )
APPEAL FROM

THE CIRCUIT COUR

T OF SHELBY C

OUNTY AT MEMPH

IS, TENNESSEE THE HONORABL E KAY S

. ROBI LI O, JUDGE

RONALD C. WILSON Mem phis, Tennessee Attor ney for Appel lant

ROBERT A. WAMPLER WAMPLER & PIERCE, P.C. Mem phis, Tennessee Attor ney for Appel lees

DISMISSED

ALAN E. HIGHERS, J.

CONCUR: DAVID R. FARMER, J. HOLLY KIRBY LILLA RD, J.1 Interesti ngly, we ar e unaware of any aut hority where by a decedent’s a ttorney of

record can fi le a sug ges tion o f dea th pu rsua nt to R ule 25.0 1 of th e Te nne sse e Ru les of Civil P roce dure . Wh ile it appears to us that T enn ess ee ca ses have not a ddre sse d this issue , we s imply note that fe dera l c ourts constr ui ng the similar federal Rule 25 have held that a decedent’s at

torney of r

ecord cannot fi le a suggesti on of death on the deced ent’s beh alf so as to trigger th e com men cem ent of R ule 25's 90 day period. See Farris v. Lynchburg Foundry , 769 F.2 d 958 (4 th Cir. 198 5); Rende v. Kay , 415 F.2d 983, 985-9 6 (D. C. Ci r. 1969); Hilsabeck v. Lane Company, Inc. , 168 F.R .D. 313, 3 14-15 (D .Kan. 19 96); Kessler v. Sout heast Permanente Medical Group , 165 F.R .D. 54, 56 (E.D.N .C. 1995 ); Al-Jundi v.Estate of Rockefelle r , 757 F. Supp. 206, 210 (W.D.N. Y. 1990); Al-Jund i v. Rockefeller , 88 F.R.D . 244, 246 (W.D.N .Y. 1980 ). See also 7C Ch arles A. W right et al. , Federal Practice and Procedure § 1955 at 545 (1986). Because we have determined t hat we must dismiss the s ubjec t app eal, h owe ver, w e res erve reso lution of this issue until it is p rope rly ra ised on ap pea l. 2 Margaret Ba rne s (P lain tiff) a pp ea ls th e tr ial c ou rt’s ord er o f dis m iss al, dis m iss ing he r co m pla int a s to Defendant Lou is M onte si (M onte si). Ba sed upo n the reco rd before thi s Court, we dismiss the subj ect appeal because Pla intiff h as ap pe ale d fro m an ord er th at a dju dic ate s fe w er th an all th e c lai ms or the r ight s and liab ilities of fe w er th an all th e p artie s a nd be ca us e th e tria l co urt did no t dir ec t the en try of a fina l jud gm en t upon an express d

ete rm ina tion tha t the re is no jus t rea so n fo r de lay an d u po n a n e xp res s d irec tion for th e en try o f jud gm en t.

Plain tiff com m enc ed th is pe rson al injury law su it ag ain st b oth Bright Glade Convalescent Home and Montesi on Novem ber 22 , 19 96 . Th ere afte r, bo th n am ed de fen da nts filed the ir re sp ec tive an sw ers to P lain tiff’s
co m pla int. On M arch 7, 19 97, M onte si’s attorn ey o f reco rd fi led and served a suggesti on of death, suggesti ng upon the recor d the f act of M on tes i’s d ea th, w hic h o cc urr ed Fe bru ary 28 , 19 97

. 1 On June 6,

19 97 , Pla intiff filed a m otion s eek ing to sub stitute “the adm inistrat or ofthe Es tate of L ou is M on tes i as a D efe nd an t in th is
ac tion.” P lain tiff’s m otio n w as late r served on Bright Glade’ s and M ontesi’ s attor neys of record on June 23, 1997. On June

16, 1997, the at torney of record forMontesi fi led and served a motion to di smiss. On Augu st 4, 19 97 , the trial c ou rt en tere d a n o rde r gr an ting the “m otio n o f the de fen da nt, L ou is M on tes i, to dismiss t he complaint filed

he rein ag ain st h im.” T he co urt’s ord er e xp lain ed tha t Plaint if f f il ed her motion to s ub stitu te “ in
a ti mely manner, but

did no t sig n a nd da te th e C ert ifica te o f S erv ice .” T he co urt ’s o rde r fu rth er e xp lain ed that Pla intiff ’s se rvic e d id not conform with t he service req uire m en ts o f R ule 25 .01 of th e T en ne ss ee R ule s o f C ivil Procedure. Thereaft er, on Sept ember 2, 1 99 7, P lain tiff filed a s ub se qu en t m otio n e ntitle d “M otio n to Am en d and/or Vac at e Order ofD

ism iss al a s to D efe nd an t, Lo uis M on tes i.” T ho ug h th is m otio n w as initia lly d en ied by the t ri al court by order dated October 15, 1 997 , the m atter w as a gain hea rd by the t ri al court on November 7, 1997, and the t ri al court ent ered an order sett ing asi de both the Oct ober 15, 1997order and t he August 4, 19 97 ord er. In th is o rde r, w hic h w as en tere d o n N ov em be r 21 , 19 97 , the trial c ou rt pr ov ide d, “th e p lain tiff . .

. is herebygranted t hirty (30) days from November 7, 1997 to subst it ute a part y defendant for the de fen da nt,3

Louis M on tes i.” O n D ec em be r 5, 1 99 7, P laint if f f il ed a motion to amend her Complaint , seeki ng “leave t o name Deb ora h H en de rso n, A dm inis trato r A d L item of th e e sta te o f Lo uis M on tes i, de ce as ed , as su bs titu t e D efe nd an t for sa id de ce de nt.” O n D ec em be r 11 , 19 97 , the tria l co urt fou nd tha t P lain tiff “fa iled to s ub stitu te
a pa rty d efe nd an t for t he de fen da nt L ou is M on tes i, in c on form ity w ith th e O rde r . . . e n tered November 21, 19 97 .” Th ere fore , the trial c ou rt dis m iss ed Pla intiff’s C om pla int a s a ga ins t M on tes i. O n January 9, 1998, Pla intiff file d a N otic e o f Ap pe al, s ee kin g to ap pe al th e D ec em be r 11 , 19 97 ord er.

Additi onally, Bright Glade fi led a m otion fo r sum m ary jud gm en t on N ov em be r 7, 19 97 . T ihs m otio n is s till pe nd ing in th e tria l co urt.
On appea l, Plaint if f stat es the fol lowing issues: 1. W hether i t was errorfor t he

lower court to [ enter t he] order of di smissal witho ut no tice to P laintiff and [an] o ppo rtunity to be h eard ? 2. Whether i t was

error for t he lower

co urt to dis m iss [the ] C om pla int a s to Louis M on tes i pu rsu an t to R ule 25 of th e T en ne ss ee R ule s o f C ivil Procedure? We pre term it the se iss ue s, h ow ev er, b ec au se Pla intiff has appealed f rom an order that adjudi cates f ewer than all the cla im s o r the righ ts a nd liab ilities of fe w er th an all th e p artie s. Tenn. R. App. P. 3( a). Further, the tri al
cou rt did not di rect

the e ntry o f a final jud gm ent u pon an e xpre ss d eterm ination that the re is no j ust reason f or delay and upon an express dir ecti on for t he entry of j udg ment . T enn . R. Civ. P. 54.02. Therefor e, t he order appealedfrom

is n ot a pp ea lab le a s o f righ t an d is su bje ct to rev isio n b efo re th e e ntry of a fina l jud gm en t. Te nn. R . Ap p. P . 3(a).
Accordingly, we hereby di smiss thesu bje ct a pp ea l. C os ts o f this ap pe al a re ta xe d to Pla intiff, fo r which execution may issue if necessary.

HIGH ERS , J.

CONCUR:4

FAR ME R, J.

LILLARD , J.