Opinion ID: 1372929
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Finality of the Judgment

Text: Ogden contends that this court is without jurisdiction to consider the trial court's order that other than as a prevailing third-party defendant in its motion for attorneys' fees, Ogden is not a party to the remaining lawsuit. It argues that the joinder order was interlocutory and not subject to review by this court. This court has jurisdiction to consider appeals from final judgments entered by the superior court. Alaska R.App.P. 202(a) (emphasis added). The basic thrust of the finality requirement is that the judgment must be one which disposes of the entire case, `... one which ends litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.' Greater Anchorage Area Borough v. City of Anchorage, 504 P.2d 1027, 1030 (Alaska 1972) (quoting Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 633, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1944)), overruled in part by City and Borough of Juneau v. Thibodeau, 595 P.2d 626, 629 (Alaska 1979) (holding that Greater Anchorage Area Borough did not apply to remand orders from the superior court acting in its appellate capacity). This court should look to the effect of the judgment, rather than the form. Id. at 1030-31. Generally, orders granting or denying motions to join parties to an existing lawsuit are interlocutory. Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 659 F.2d 551, 553 (5th Cir. Unit A Oct. 1981); Prop-Jets, Inc. v. Chandler, 575 F.2d 1322, 1325 (10th Cir.1978). However, in this case the order declaring Ogden a non-party was a denial of Martech's motion for clarification of the order dismissing the third party claim. The order dismissing the third party claim was certified by the superior court as a final judgment under Civil Rule 54(b). [14] Martech is appealing this first order. The second order only serves to elucidate the effect of the first order. Thus Martech is appealing a final judgment. [15]