Opinion ID: 1873693
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: all the issues raised by andrew on remand were justiciable in pennfield i

Text: We reject Andrew's claims that his remaining issues were not ripe for adjudication until after our remand in Pennfield I. Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine that courts consider in determining whether they may properly decide a controversy. [30] The fundamental principle of ripeness is that courts should avoid entangling themselves, through premature adjudication, in abstract disagreements based on contingent future events that may not occur at all or may not occur as anticipated. [31] Generally, a case is ripe when no further factual development is necessary to clarify a concrete legal dispute susceptible to specific judicial relief, as distinguished from an advisory opinion regarding contingent future events. [32] Andrew's claims that Bill had breached a fiduciary duty to Pennfield and that Bill and Sydney could not vote on Pennfield's waiver were based on undisputed facts  not contingent future events. In Pennfield I, we specifically stated that Andrew's cross-claims, and Bill and his wife's petition in intervention, effectively raised the same issues, so the court had before it all the parties to a legal dispute that was ripe for disposition.  [33] Andrew clearly raised these issues in his original pleadings. He specifically alleged that his claims were ripe for declaratory judgment, and obtained a judgment. [34] Similarly, Andrew's additional claims that Bill was not entitled to enforce the waiver provision could have been raised to the district court in the first proceeding. The law disfavors piecemeal appeals. Multiple appeals interfere with efficient judicial administration and impose on the parties costs and risks associated with protracted litigation. [35] We reject Andrew's arguments that his remaining issues were not mature for adjudication until after we had decided Pennfield I. Absent allegations of a material and substantial difference in the evidence, issues that the district court decided against Andrew that he failed to appeal, and justiciable issues that Andrew failed to raise to the district court in Pennfield I, were not open to consideration as part of our remand. [36]