Title: Coughlin v. Hale
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1100333
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: December 16, 2011

Rel: 12/16/2011
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012
_________________________
1100333
_________________________
Harry Coughlin and Bettye Coughlin
v.
Mike Hale
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
(CV-08-751)
PARKER, Justice.
Harry Coughlin and Bettye Coughlin appeal the Jefferson
Circuit Court's judgment dismissing Mike Hale from an action
1100333
Mike Hale is the sheriff of Jefferson County.
1
2
they filed against Hale  and others.  We dismiss the
1
Coughlins' appeal as untimely.
Facts and Procedural History
On February 29, 2008, the Coughlins sued Hale, among
others, seeking money damages for numerous claims arising out
of an ongoing dispute between the Coughlins and their
neighbors.  The Coughlins stated in their complaint that
"[a]ll of the acts complained of herein were done by the above
named agents/employees of Jefferson County with the full
knowledge and consent of Jefferson County."
On March 26, 2008, Hale, among other defendants not
parties to this appeal, filed a motion to dismiss in which
they argued that the circuit court lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction over them based upon the doctrine of sovereign
immunity as established in Art. I, § 14, Alabama Constitution
of 1901.  On July 2, 2008, the circuit court entered an order
granting the motion to dismiss as to Hale and certified its
order as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ.
P.
1100333
Rule 4(a)(1), Ala. R. App. P., states:
2
"Except as otherwise provided herein, in all cases
in which an appeal is permitted by law as of right
to the supreme court or to a court of appeals, the
notice of appeal required by Rule 3[, Ala. R. App.
P.,] shall be filed with the clerk of the trial
court within 42 days (6 weeks) of the date of the
entry of the judgment or order appealed from ...."
3
On November 16, 2010, the circuit court entered its final
judgment disposing of all the remaining claims against the
remaining parties.  On November 22, 2010, the Coughlins filed
a postjudgment motion, which the circuit court denied on
November 30, 2010.  On December 9, 2010, the Coughlins filed
a notice of appeal to this Court listing Hale as the sole
appellee.
Discussion
Hale argues on appeal that "[t]he Coughlins' appeal is
not timely under [Rule 4,] Ala. R. App. P.[, ] and should be
2
dismissed."  Hale's brief, at p. 11.  Hale argues that,
because they filed their appeal more than 42 days after the
circuit court entered its order dismissing Hale from the
action based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which
order the circuit court certified as final pursuant to Rule
54(b), the Coughlins' appeal is untimely.  We agree.
1100333
4
In order to determine the timeliness of the Coughlins'
appeal, we must first determine whether the circuit court
exceeded its discretion in certifying its order dismissing
Hale from the action as a final judgment.  Concerning
judgments certified as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), this
Court recently held in Loachapoka Water Authority, Inc. v.
Water Works Board of Auburn, [Ms. 1091297, June 24, 2011] ___
So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2011):
"'If a trial court certifies a judgment as final
pursuant to Rule 54(b), an appeal will generally lie
from that judgment.' Baugus v. City of Florence, 968
So. 2d 529, 531 (Ala. 2007) (emphasis added).
However, this Court will not consider an appeal from
a judgment certified as final under Rule 54(b) if it
determines that the trial court exceeded its
discretion in concluding that there is 'no just
reason for delay.' Rule 54(b); see also Scrushy v.
Tucker, 955 So. 2d 988, 996 (Ala. 2006) ('Whether
there was "no just reason for delay" is an inquiry
committed to the sound discretion of the trial
court, and, as to that issue, we must determine
whether the trial court exceeded its discretion.').
"A trial court exceeds its discretion in
determining that there is 'no just reason for delay'
when ... 'the issues in the claim being certified
and a claim that will remain pending in the trial
court "'are so closely intertwined that separate
adjudication would pose an unreasonable risk of
inconsistent results.'"' Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So. 2d
418, 419–20 (Ala. 2006) (quoting Clarke–Mobile
Counties Gas Dist. v. Prior Energy Corp., 834 So. 2d
88, 95 (Ala. 2002), quoting in turn Branch v.
SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So. 2d 1373,
1100333
5
1374 (Ala. 1987)). See also Centennial Assocs., Ltd.
v. Guthrie, 20 So. 3d 1277, 1281 (Ala. 2009) ('"It
is uneconomical for an appellate court to review
facts 
on 
an 
appeal 
following 
a 
Rule 
54(b)
certification that it is likely to be required to
consider again when another appeal is brought after
the [trial] court renders its decision on the
remaining claims or as to the remaining parties."'
(quoting 10 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2659 (1998)))."
The Coughlins make no argument, nor is there anything in
the record, to indicate that the circuit court exceeded its
discretion in determining that there was no just reason for
delay and in certifying its order dismissing Hale as a
defendant as a final judgment under Rule 54(b).  The circuit
court dismissed Hale from the Coughlins' action because it
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over him, leaving no claim
pending before the circuit court against Hale.  Therefore,
there was no risk that "a claim ... pending in the trial court
'"'[was] so closely intertwined that separate adjudication
would pose an unreasonable risk of inconsistent results.'"'"
Loachapoka Water Auth., ___ So. 3d at ___ (quoting other
cases).
The Coughlins filed their notice of appeal from the
circuit court's July 2, 2008, order in favor of Hale on
December 9, 2010, more than two years after the judgment from
1100333
6
which they purport to be appealing had been entered.  The
Coughlins' appeal does not comply with Rule 4(a)(1), Ala. R.
App. P., because it was filed more than 42 days after the
circuit court entered its order dismissing Hale from the
action, which it made final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R.
Civ. P.; thus, their appeal is untimely.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, we dismiss the Coughlins' appeal
as untimely.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Malone, C.J., and Stuart and Wise, JJ., concur.
Shaw, J., concurs in the result.