Opinion ID: 1387290
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Interlocutory Nature

Text: In the first instance, assuming arguendo that Profile is entitled to the immunity it seeks under either the Workers' Compensation or the Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) statutes, Profile's reasoning for why this appeal should go forward is unconvincing. It is uncontroverted that Profile's appeal from the trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment is interlocutory. See Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 362, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1950) (An interlocutory order is one made during the pendency of an action, which does not dispose of the case, but leaves it for further action by the trial court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy. (citation omitted)). Generally, there is no right of immediate appeal from interlocutory orders and judgments. Goldston v. Am. Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723, 725, 392 S.E.2d 735, 736 (1990). There are sound reasons for this. We have previously held that [t]here is no more effective way to procrastinate the administration of justice than that of bringing cases to an appellate court piecemeal through the medium of successive appeals from intermediate orders. Veazey, 231 N.C. at 363, 57 S.E.2d at 382. However, interlocutory orders are immediately appealable if they: (1) affect a substantial right and (2) [will] work injury if not corrected before final judgment. Goldston, 326 N.C. at 728, 392 S.E.2d at 737 (citing Wachovia Realty Invs. v. Hous., Inc., 292 N.C. 93, 232 S.E.2d 667 (1977)). Therefore, the only way Profile can maintain this appeal is if it can show that it will lose a substantial right if the case proceeds any further at the trial level. To that end, Profile argues that it has the substantial right not to be potentially subjected to two trials on the same issue, and therefore to be exposed to inconsistent verdicts. However, Profile's argument overlooks the key fact that Terra-Mulch obtained summary judgment in its favor. Therefore, the only potential trial that Profile could face would be as the sole defendant in a court proceeding designed to determine its own liability. With a single defendant and single set of facts, there is absolutely no possibility of inconsistent verdicts. As such, there is no substantial right implicated which would give rise to an immediate appeal. The majority does not attempt to offer a reason as to why the Court of Appeals erred in finding that there was no substantial right generating a right of immediate appeal, other than finding merit in appellant's claim that it is entitled to immunity under the LLC or workers' compensation statutes. The majority's approach to this case is backward. The analysis starts with evaluating the merits of Profile's claim. Having ruled in Profile's favor on the basis of hitherto unrecognized LLC immunity, only then does it somehow bootstrap that into a right of immediate appeal. I note that both this Court and the Court of Appeals have uniformly rejected similar attempts by non-sovereign appellants claiming immunity in order to obtain immediate appellate review of an adverse ruling. We have specifically held that the right to avoid a trial in the wake of an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment is not a substantial right offering the route of immediate appeal. See, e.g., Tridyn Indus., Inc. v. Am. Mut. Ins. Co., 296 N.C. 486, 491-92, 251 S.E.2d 443, 447-48 (1979). Furthermore, we have previously noted that [p]ractically all courts which have considered the question, including our Court of Appeals, have held that the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not appealable. Waters v. Qualified Pers., Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208, 240 S.E.2d 338, 344 (1978) (listing cases). See also Robinson v. Gardner, 167 N.C.App. 763, 769, 606 S.E.2d 449, 453 disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 322, 611 S.E.2d 417 (2005) (Defendants do not seek to avoid inconsistent decisions; they seek to avoid any litigation at all.) Since [i]t is the appellant's burden to present appropriate grounds for this Court's acceptance of an interlocutory appeal, Johnson v. Lucas, 168 N.C.App. 515, 518, 608 S.E.2d 336, 338 (quoting Thompson v. Norfolk S. Ry., 140 N.C.App. 115, 121, 535 S.E.2d 397, 401 (2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)), aff'd per curiam, 360 N.C. 53, 619 S.E.2d 502 (2005), I would affirm the determination of the Court of Appeals that this appeal is interlocutory.