Opinion ID: 1714382
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the trial court erred by granting API's motion to dismiss.

Text: Rosen also argues that the trial court erred in granting API's motion to dismiss because, she says, API would not be prejudiced by being named as a defendant, and that it knew, or should have known, that but for Rosen's mistake, it would have been named as a defendant. On June 21, 2001, in lieu of filing its brief in this Court, API filed a motion to dismiss Rosen's appeal as it applied to API, arguing that Rosen had failed to meet the requirements of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure to properly put it on notice that it was a party to this appeal. API asserts that it was not served with the notice of appeal as required by Rule 3(d)(1), or with any of the rest of the. appeal documents, as required by Rule 25(b). It relies on Penick v. Cado Systems of Central Alabama, Inc., 628 So.2d 598 (Ala.1993), to argue that Rule 2(a)(2)(D), Ala. R.App. P., supports its contention that this appeal, as it applies to API, is due to be dismissed. In Penick, this Court stated: Penick also contends that the trial judge erred in dismissing Cado Systems and Cognition [Technology Corporation] in CV-92-7219. We need not address that contention however, because as to these two defendants the appeal is due to be dismissed under Rule 2(a)(2)(D), [Ala.] R.App. P., which provides for dismissal of an appeal when the appellant has failed to comply substantially with the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is undisputed that Cado Systems and Cognition were not served with a notice of appeal and were not served with a designation of the record as required by Rule 3(c), [Ala.] R.App. P. Although `Cado Systems' was listed on the docketing statement (see Rule 3(e), [Ala.] R.App. P.) as the party appealed against, it was not served with a copy of the statement, and the only attorney listed on the statement is counsel for G.E. Capital [a defendant in a related case] not Cado Systems. In addition, Penick's brief does not show service on counsel for these two defendants. In fact, Cado Systems and Cognition learned of the appeal only through counsel for G.E. Capital. This was despite the fact that their counsel had filed answers for both corporations. ... The motion of Cado Systems and Cognition to dismiss the appeal as to them is due to be granted. 628 So.2d at 600-01. On July 6, 2001, Rosen filed a Motion to Suspend the Rules and Response to API's motion to dismiss. Her motion, in pertinent part, states: The motion to dismiss asserts that the movant, ANESTHESIA PROFESSIONALS, INC., was not adequately moved [sic] in the notice of appeal, and that counsel for the movant had not been listed as one of the lawyers or firms to be served with copies of documents relating to that appeal. API does not, however, assert that it was not aware of the appeal at all necessary stages thereof. In fact, its motion clearly asserts that it was made aware of the proceedings at all stages necessary for it to take whatever action it needed to protect its interests. The brief filed by the Appellant, as well as all of the briefs filed by API's agent, ROYCE ELLIS, both contain certificates showing service upon API's counsel. Therefore, in spite of the Court's holding in the case of Penick v. Cado Systems of Central Alabama, Inc., 628 So.2d 598 (Ala.1993), API has not been prejudiced by the technical failures of the Appellant to follow the rules. Unlike Penick, API's counsel was listed on the Appellant's certificate of Service and API's agents were aware of the appeal at all times. Rule 2(b) of [the] Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, permits the Court to suspend the rules to allow API to be identified as a party to these proceedings. The Appellant therefore moves the Court to do so at this time, and to permit API to file a brief in support of its positions. Rosen's notice of appeal, filed March 16, 2001, listed the appellees as Montgomery Surgical Center, Royce Ellis, Beverly Ellis, Anesthesia. The notice of appeal further stated that Rosen was appealing the summary judgment; it did not mention the judgment of dismissal entered in favor of API. Lastly, the Certificate of Filing section in Rosen's notice of appeal referenced an attached list of counsel representing Montgomery Surgical Center, Royce Ellis, and Beverly Ellis; it did not list API's counsel. API's counsel was not served with a letter of transmittal of the notice of appeal by the Montgomery County trial clerk, as a result of not having been listed as counsel for an appellee. In Rosen's docketing statement, also filed on March 16, the appellees were listed as Montgomery Surgical Center, Royce Ellis, Beverly El. [sic] The docketing statement also stated that the appeal was from only the summary judgment. The statement of the issue in Rosen's docketing statement related only to the summary judgment, failing to list the issue regarding the motion to dismiss, which she now asserts in her brief. As was the case with the notice of appeal, API's counsel was not listed in Rosen's attachment as counsel for an appellee. Rosen's brief did name API as an appellee, and counsel for API was served with a copy of the brief. The only deviation in the facts of this case and those of Penick is that in this case, counsel for API was served with a copy of Rosen's brief. The other factors that supported dismissal in Penick are present in this case. An additional factor supporting dismissal in this case is that Rosen did not state in her docketing statement an issue on appeal concerning API. Rosen's lack of compliance with the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, in light of Penick, is of such a significant nature that it warrants dismissal. Therefore, the summary judgment for the MSC defendants is affirmed, and the motion to dismiss this appeal as it applies to API is granted. AFFIRMED IN PART; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART. MOORE, C.J., and SEE, BROWN, and STUART, JJ., concur.