Opinion ID: 2773043
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the district court’s order was final

Text: ¶9 In Powell v. Cannon, we held that when a district court orders a stay of litigation pending the completion of arbitration, the order is not final if the court retains jurisdiction to resolve any remaining issues after the conclusion of arbitration proceedings. 2008 UT 19, ¶ 18, 179 P.3d 799. In Zions Management Services v. Record, however, we clarified that if the only issue before the court is whether to compel arbitration, an order compelling arbitration is “a final decision because it effectively end[s] the controversy between the parties and [leaves] no claims pending before the district court.” 2013 UT 36, ¶ 26, 305 P.3d 1062 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 Cite as: 2015 UT 3 Opinion of the Court ¶10 In this case, the district court dismissed Ms. McGibbon’s lawsuit when it compelled arbitration. It did not retain jurisdiction over the proceedings because there remained nothing left for it to resolve once arbitration was finished. The order compelling arbitration was therefore a final order under Zions Management. ¶11 Because the district court’s order was final, we cannot review it on interlocutory appeal. This is apparent from the plain language of the rule governing interlocutory appeals, which allows parties to initiate an appeal by petitioning the appellate court only when they seek “[a]n appeal from an interlocutory order.” UTAH R. APP. P. 5(a). ¶12 This conclusion is further supported by our precedent. In Clark v. Archer, we held that rules 3 and 4, not rule 5, “provide the procedural mechanism for a party to appeal a final order. When a district court has entered a final judgment [or other final order], parties to the litigation are bound to follow the procedural requirements of [rules 3 and 4] in seeking appellate review.” 2010 UT 57, ¶ 9, 242 P.3d 758. ¶13 The law is clear: Ms. McGibbon could not appeal the district court’s final order by following the requirements of rule 5. The question, then, is whether her filings satisfied the requirements of rules 3 and 4. We address this question below.