VIRGINIA: 

In the Court of Appeals of Virginia on Tuesday the 20th day of February, 2018. 

Tesla, Inc., Appellant, 

 against Record No. 1180-17-2 

 Circuit Court No. CL17-283 

Virginia Automobile Dealers Association, Appellee. 

Richard D. Holcomb, Commissioner, 

 Department of Motor Vehicles, 

 Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellant, 

 against Record No. 1181-17-2 

 Circuit Court No. CL17-283 

Virginia Automobile Dealers Association, Appellee. 

From the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond 

Judges Petty, Beales and AtLee 

Charles C. Lifland (John D. McGavin; Daniel M. Petrocelli; Randy 

Oppenheimer; Anne E. Huffsmith; Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, 

P.C.; O’Melveny & Myers, LLP, on briefs), for appellant Tesla, Inc. 

Jeffrey R. Allen, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney 

General; Eric K.G. Fiske, Special Counsel; Christian A. Parrish, Assistant 

Attorney General, on briefs), for appellant Richard D. Holcomb, Commissioner 

Department of Motor Vehicles, Commonwealth of Virginia. 

Brad D. Weiss (Michael G. Charapp; Barrett C. Beaty; Charapp & Weiss, LLP 

on briefs), for appellee. 

 The Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles and Tesla, Inc. filed appeals with 

this Court challenging the circuit court’s order overruling their demurrers. The appellants argue that the 

circuit court erred in finding the appellee, Virginia Automobile Dealers Association (VADA), has standing to 

file an appeal in the circuit court challenging a case decision by the Commissioner. VADA filed with this 

Court a motion to dismiss alleging that the order of the circuit court overruling the demurrers was not an 

PUBLISHED 
-2- 

appealable order and, thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the order. We conclude this Court lacks 

jurisdiction to hear the appeals, and we grant VADA’s motion to dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

 Tesla requested an evidentiary hearing by the Commissioner to determine if it qualified under Code 

§ 46.2-1572(4) to open a manufacturer-owned dealership in Richmond, Virginia. A hearing officer appointed 

by the Commissioner granted VADA’s request to intervene in the proceeding. After a hearing, the hearing 

officer recommended that Tesla’s request for a dealership in Richmond be denied. Tesla requested review by 

the Commissioner. The Commissioner ruled that Tesla qualified under Code § 46.2-1572(4) to open a 

dealership. Pursuant to Code § 2.2-4026 of the Virginia Administrative Process Act, VADA filed an appeal 

with the circuit court from the Commissioner’s case decision; the appeal named the Commissioner and Tesla 

as appellees. The Commissioner and Tesla filed demurrers to the action, arguing that VADA had no standing 

to appeal the Commissioner’s decision. In a June 26, 2017 order, the circuit court overruled the demurrers 

and ruled that VADA has standing as an aggrieved party to appeal the Commissioner’s decision. The order 

also granted VADA leave to amend the petition for appeal to include two individual dealerships as 

petitioners. The circuit court did not reach the merits of VADA’s claims of error. The Commissioner and 

Tesla filed an appeal of the circuit court’s June 26, 2017 order pursuant to the Virginia Administrative 

Process Act. See Code 17.1-405(4). 

ANALYSIS

“The Court of Appeals of Virginia is a court of limited jurisdiction.” Commonwealth v. Lancaster, 45 

Va. App. 723, 730, 613 S.E.2d 828, 831 (2005) (quoting Canova Electric Contracting v. LMI Ins., 22 

Va. App. 595, 599, 471 S.E.2d 827, 829 (1996)). “As a court of limited jurisdiction, ‘we have no jurisdiction 

over appeals except that granted us by statute.’” Id. (quoting Polumbo v. Polumbo, 13 Va. App. 306, 307, 

411 S.E.2d 229, 229 (1991)). Pursuant to Code § 17.1-405(1) and (4), the Court of Appeals has appellate 

jurisdiction over “[a]ny final decision of a circuit court on appeal from a decision of an administrative agency 

. . . [and] any interlocutory decree or order . . . adjudicating the principles of a cause.” Id. at 731, 613 S.E.2d 
-3- 

at 831. “[A] ‘final order’ is an order ‘that is dispositive of the entire case.’” Id. at 731, 613 S.E.2d at 831-32 

(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1130 (8th ed. 2004)). Our jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory order is 

limited to those orders that adjudicate the principles of the cause. Adjudicating the principles of a cause 

“mean[s] that the rules or methods by which the rights of the parties are to be finally worked out have been so 

far determined that it is only necessary to apply these rules or methods to the facts of the case in order to 

ascertain the relative rights of the parties with regard to the subject matter of the suit.” Lewis v. Lewis, 271 

Va. 520, 526, 628 S.E.2d 314, 317 (2006) (quoting Lancaster v. Lancaster, 86 Va. (11 Hans.) 201, 204-05, 

9 S.E. 988, 990 (1889)). Thus, an interlocutory order adjudicating the principles of a cause “must address 

‘the chief object of the suit.’” de Haan v. de Haan, 54 Va. App. 428, 439, 680 S.E.2d 297, 303 (2009) 

(alteration omitted) (quoting Erikson v. Erikson, 19 Va. App. 389, 391, 451 S.E.2d 711, 713 (1994)). 

An order adjudicating the principles of the cause must address the merits of the suit. Generally, 

preliminary rulings, such as overruling demurrers and determining standing, do not address the merits and 

therefore cannot be orders that adjudicate the principles of the cause.1 Thrasher v. Lustig, 204 Va. 399, 403, 

131 S.E.2d 286, 289 (1963). In Thrasher, Thrasher argued in the lower court that Lustig was not “a real party 

in interest,” i.e. did not have standing, to bring the underlying suit and that a necessary party had not been 

joined. Id. at 401, 131 S.E.2d at 288. The lower court ruled Lustig did have standing to sue and gave Lustig 

leave to amend the complaint. Thrasher appealed the interlocutory order; Lustig filed a motion to dismiss the 

appeal. Id. Holding that “the interlocutory decree under review in no sense adjudicates the principles of the 

cause of this suit and it is not appealable,” the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Id. at 403, 131 S.E.2d at 

289. The Court noted that “as a general rule interlocutory decrees or orders overruling motions as to joinder 

of parties, or a substitution of parties, are not appealable.” Id.; Richardson v. Bowcock, 213 Va. 141, 142, 

191 S.E.2d 238, 238 (1972) (“An order overruling a demurrer is not one which adjudicates the principles of a 

 1

 Of course, if the circuit court had found VADA did not have standing, and accordingly sustained the 

demurrer and dismissed the case, then the order would have been appealable as a final, rather than 

interlocutory, order. See Code § 17.1-405(1). 
-4- 

cause.”). The interlocutory decree regarding standing “settled none of the allegations in the bill of 

complaint.” Thrasher, 204 Va. at 403, 131 S.E.2d at 289. Furthermore, “[t]he subject matter of the suit was 

still in the breast of the court and appellant was granted leave to file his answer.” Id. The Court reasoned that 

the lower court’s preliminary order merely determined that the case could proceed at that time and “merely 

deferred action until the evidence could be heard. . . . [A]t any stage of the cause as the ends of justice may 

require” the court could reconsider its decision. Id. at 402-03, 131 S.E.2d at 289.2 

 Here, the Commissioner and Tesla agree that the circuit court’s June 26, 2017 order was not a final 

order, and it clearly is not. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to hear appellants’ interlocutory appeals 

only if the circuit court’s order adjudicates the principles of the cause. Code § 17.1-405(4). The merits of 

VADA’s administrative appeal center on its contention that the Commissioner committed error by finding 

Tesla qualifies for a dealership pursuant to Code § 46.2-1572(4). The circuit court’s June 26, 2017 order 

addressed VADA’s right to proceed with an appeal of the Commissioner’s decision and to amend its petition 

for appeal; it clearly did not address, let alone adjudicate, VADA’s assertion that the Commissioner erred. 

The circuit court’s decision that the VADA has standing merely determines that the case may proceed at this 

time. The subject matter of VADA’s administrative appeal is still in the breast of the circuit court, and the 

court “as the ends of justice may require” may reconsider its decision. See Thrasher, 204 Va. at 403, 131 

 2

 In evaluating appellants’ demurrers, the circuit court here was required to accept as true the 

allegations in the VADA’s petition for appeal. See Desetti v. Chester, 290 Va. 50, 53, 772 S.E.2d 907, 908 

(2015) (“For purposes of evaluating a demurrer, a court assumes that all material facts, implied facts[,] and 

reasonable inferences from those facts that are properly alleged in the [pleading] are true.” (first alteration in 

original) (quoting Brown v. Jacobs, 289 Va. 209, 212 n.2, 768 S.E.2d 421, 423 n.2 (2015))). Rule 2A:3 

requires the agency secretary to “transmit the record to the clerk of the court named in the notice of appeal” 

after the circuit “court has entered an order overruling any motions, demurrers and other pleas filed by the 

agency.” Here, the circuit court did not have the agency record before it when it determined that the VADA 

was an aggrieved party for purposes of the Virginia Administrative Process Act. After the circuit court has 

reviewed the agency record and heard additional arguments on the merits, it may reconsider whether VADA 

is an aggrieved party. Thrasher, 204 Va. at 403, 131 S.E.2d at 289. See also Chaplain v. Chaplain, 54 

Va. App. 762, 770, 682 S.E.2d 108, 112 (2009) (“[A]ppeals from interlocutory orders are not favored in the 

law. ‘By their nature, interlocutory appeals are disruptive, time-consuming, and expensive. . . . They invite 

inefficiency, redundancy, and delay.’” (quoting de Haan, 54 Va. App. at 441, 680 S.E.2d at 304 (internal 

citations omitted))). 
-5- 

S.E.2d at 289. Because the order clearly does not address the merits of the administrative appeal, it does not 

adjudicate the principles of the cause. See id. 

 Appellants, however, urge this Court to deny VADA’s motion to dismiss these appeals, to reverse the 

circuit court’s overruling of their demurrers, and to dismiss VADA’s appeal of the Commissioner’s decision. 

They argue that if VADA is not an aggrieved party then sovereign immunity prevents VADA from 

challenging the Commissioner’s decision. While the legal principle is correct, the argument is circular 

because the argument prevails only if we reverse on the merits the circuit court’s order. However, this is 

precisely what this Court does not have jurisdiction to do because here the circuit court’s interlocutory order 

regarding standing did not adjudicate the principles of the cause. Thus, even if we agreed with appellants that 

the circuit court erred in concluding VADA is an aggrieved party for purposes of the Virginia Administrative 

Process Act, we simply have no statutory jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order at this point in the 

litigation. Lancaster, 86 Va. (11 Hans.) at 203-04, 9 S.E. at 989 (“It thus plainly appears that the first, and 

perhaps, the only question we have to decide, is whether an appeal lies from such a decree. For unless this 

inquiry can be determined affirmatively, the court has no election, although, if it were permitted to examine 

the bill, it might be of opinion the bill was multifarious, or demurrable for misjoinder of parties, or that it 

should have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction, but must dismiss the appeal.”). 

CONCLUSION

 The circuit court’s order overruling the demurrers filed by the Commissioner and Tesla and granting 

leave for the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association to amend its petition for appeal did not adjudicate the 

principles of the cause; it was thus not an appealable interlocutory order, and this Court has no jurisdiction to 

consider it. Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals. 

 This order shall be published and certified to the circuit court. 

 A Copy, 

 Teste: 

 Cynthia L. McCoy, Clerk 

 original order signed by a deputy clerk of the

 By: Court of Appeals of Virginia at the direction 

 of the Court 

 Deputy Clerk