Opinion ID: 2317146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Thomas' Motion to Dismiss

Text: Thomas has filed a motion to dismiss, in part, the Cahalls' appeal on the ground that their appeal from the jury's verdict is untimely because it was not filed within thirty days of the Superior Court's final judgment, which was the denial of the motion for new trial. [2] Thomas asserts that the pending motion for costs did not suspend the finality of the Superior Court's judgment. [3] Thus, according to Thomas, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Cahalls' untimely appeal from the jury's verdict. Our ruling on Thomas' motion is dictated by established precedent. In Emerald Partners v. Berlin , [4] the appellees moved to dismiss that appeal as interlocutory because the notice of appeal was filed before the trial court ruled on a pending motion for costs. We denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the pendency of a motion for costs ... does not delay the finality of a judgment on the merits. [5] We reiterated this point in McDaniel v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. [6] when we granted the appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of the Superior Court's entry of summary judgment. We rejected McDaniel's contention that a pending motion for costs suspended the finality of the trial court's summary judgment ruling. [7] In light of this clear precedent, Thomas' motion to dismiss in part must be granted. The Cahalls should have filed their notice of appeal from the jury's verdict within thirty days after the Superior Court's entry of final judgment in this case. The jury's verdict in this case became a final, appealable order on July 16, 2004 when the Superior Court denied the Cahalls' motion for new trial. The Cahalls' failure to properly notice an appeal from the jury's verdict within the required time period deprives this Court of jurisdiction to review the jury's verdict in this appeal. Consequently, Thomas' motion to dismiss in part is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to establish a brief schedule on the Cahalls' appeal with respect to the issue of costs only.