### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A ugus t 20 , 200 8 S es sio n ALE X IKB AR IAH AND 

### I & K ENT ERP RISE S

v. DEB RA F. WILLIAM S An Appeal from the C hancery Court for Shelby Coun ty No. CH 06-0824-1 Walt er L. Evans, Chan cellor

No. W2008-00126-C OA-R3-C V - Filed October 17, 2008

This appea l involves tort and brea ch of c ontrac t c laims. The plaintiffs are fra nchisee s of a re staurant c ha in. Th e y fil e d this la ws uit a ga ins t an ind ivi du a l emp loy e e of the fr a nc his e or ga niz a tio n a s w e ll a s o the r c or

po rate de fe nd a nts . T he c omp la int se t fo rth ma ny the orie s o f r e c ov e ry , b ut a sse rt e d o nly a n e xto rt ion c la im a ga ins t th e ind ivi du a l e mpl oy e e . T he tr ia l c ou rt dis mis se d th e e xto rt ion c la im and, conse quently, dismiss ed the e mployee fr om the lawsuit. The plaintiffs’ c laims against the cor p o ra t e d efendants re mained pending. The plaintiffs filed this appea l of the trial court’s order dis mis sin g th e c la im a ga ins t the ind ivi du a l e mpl oy e e
. Th e plaint if fs we re no t gi ve n p e rm iss ion to file an inter locutory appe al, and the or der f rom which the pla intiffs appeal was not designate d as final under

Tenn. R. C iv. P. 54.02. Thus, we f ind that the order

from which the plaintiffs appe al was no t a fi na l or de r, a ndthe re fo re dis mis s th e app e a l. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal is Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdi ction
H OL LY M. K I RBY , J., delivere d the opi nion of the Court, in which A LA N E. H I G H ERS , P.J., W.S., and D AVI D R. F ARMER , J., joined.
Rol a ndW . Ba gg ott , I II , N a sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the app ell ant s, Al e x I kb ari a h a ndI & K En te rp ri se s. H. Buckley Cole, Na shville, Tennessee , for the a ppellee, D ebra

F. Williams.
OP INION
Plaintiff/A p p el l an t Alex Ikba riah (“ Ikbariah”) is the sole share holder of the Pla int if f/Ap pe lla nt I & K

En te rp ri se s, In c . ( “ I & K” ). I & K o wn e d a fr a nc his e d I nte rn a tio na l H ou se of Panca kes (“ IHOP”) restaur ant locate d in Memphis, Tenne ssee. On April 25, 2006, Ikba riah a nd I & K ( c oll e c tiv e ly “ Pla int if fs ” ) f ile d th is l a ws uit

a ga ins t D e fe nd a nt/Ap pe lle e De br a F. W ill ia ms (“W illiams”), an IH OP field business consultant, as we ll as IHOP, IHO P Corp., and IHOP Properties, Inc . (collec tively, “Def endants” ). Appar ently, Williams’ job duties included inspectingA t or al a r gum ent i n t hi s a ppea l , t he at t or neys i ndi ca t ed t hat t he r em ai ni ng c l ai m s a gai ns t t he r em ai ni ng 1 defenda nt s a r e i n t he di s cove r y pha s e of t r i al pr epa r at i on.

-2- and eva luating restaur ants such as the Plaintiffs’ restaur ant. The Plaintiffs’ c omplaint alleged that Williams extorted money f rom Ikbariah and his business by demanding that he “loan” money to her. He c omp lie d w ith he r d e ma nd“ ou t of fe ar that sh e wo uld arb itr ari ly, c apric iou sly , a ndwi tho ut b a sis , ne ga tiv e ly r e vie w” his IHOP fr a nc his e . T he c omp la int state d o the r c la ims a ga ins t th e c or po rate de fe nd a nt s, su c h a s b re a c h o f c on tr a c t, f ra ud ule nt i nd uc e me nt, a nddis pa rate tr e a tme nt. Th e on ly c la im a sse rt e d a ga ins t W ill ia ms w a s th e e xto rt ion c la im.
On Au gu st 2 3, 20 07 , th e De fe nd a nts fi le d a mot ionto d ism iss the c la im of e xto rt ion a ga ins t W ill ia ms a nd to dis mis s W ill ia ms fr om the la ws uit , a rg uin g th a t T e nn e sse e statut e s p ro vid e no c ivi l re m ed i es for extortion. The trial c ourt held a he aring on the D efe ndants’ motion to dism iss. On Dec ember

17, 2007, the trial court entere d an orde r gra nting the Defen d an t s ’ m o t ion, dismi ssing Wil li a ms f

r o m th e la w s u it

. T h e o r d e r d id n o t a d d r e s s a n y o f th e r e main in g c laim s s tate d in the c omp la int

. The Plaintiffs did not seek pe rmission to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tenne ssee Rules of A ppellate Proc edure , and did not ask the trial court to make the or der a final adjudication pursua nt to Rul e 54.02 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Civil Procedur e. They simply filed a notice of

appea l, seeking to appe al the trial c ourt’s De cembe r 17, 2007 orde r. Rule 3 of the Te nnessee Rules of Appellate Proce d u re provides that if a n action includes mul tip le pa

rt ie s o r mult ipl e c la ims , a ny or de r that a dju dic a te s f e we r than a ll the c la ims or the ri gh ts a ndlia bil iti e s o f f

e wer th a n a ll the pa

rt ie s is no t f

ina l or app e a la ble . E xc e pt w he re oth e rw ise provided, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction only over final orde rs. S ee Bay berry Assocs. v. Jones , 783 S.W.2d 553, 559 (Tenn. 1990)

. From our revie w of this rec ord, it ap p ears that the trial court has not yet adjudicated all of the Plaintiffs’ claims as to all of the Def endants. B eca

use all of the c laims have not bee n 1 adjudicate d, this Court would have jurisdiction to hear this appea l only if permission to file an int e rl oc uto ry app e a l ha d be e n gr a nte d pu rs ua nt to Rul e s 9 or 10 of the Te nn e sse e Rul e s of Ap pe llate Procedur e, or if the order appea led had be en made final pursua nt to Ru l e 5 4 .02 of the Te nnessee Rules of Civil P roce dure. N either w as done.
Ikbariah and I & K have appea led an or der tha t is not final. This leaves us without subject matter jurisdiction, and the a ppeal must be dismissed.-3-

Acc ordingly, the appe al is dismis sed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Cost s on appea l are taxed to A ppellants Alex Ikbariah and I & K Enterprises, Inc., and their sur ety, for w hich exe cution may issue, if nec essary.

___________________________________ HOLLY M. K IRBY, JUDGE