Court Opinion

ID: 9668307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:09:11.642433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:44.516758
License: Public Domain

MESCHKE, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in declining to review this order. It was incomplete and not ready for review even if an express Rule 54(b) determination had been made. Furthermore, an order about changing venue is generally regarded as interlocutory, not final, and not ap-pealable. 4 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error § 89 (1962).
Because the full sweep of our finality doctrine has only recently been explained, there is some merit in treating the trial court’s effort to make “an appealable ‘Order’ ” as qualifying under Rule 54(b), even on such a clearly interlocutory matter as the location of the trial. However, the trial court should not be foreclosed from declining Rule 54(b) action on remand. The trial court may determine, as intended by Rule 54(b), that there is “just reason for delay” of an order on the place of trial. Even if the trial court determines that there is “no just reason for delay” and directs entry of a “judgment” about the place of trial, a cross-appeal may follow in a manner inconsistent with our retention of jurisdiction and with our expressed limitations following action on remand.
I would prefer, also, that a Courchene remand not be used except in the clearest kind of case. Regrettably, we have not used it in more serious circumstances, such as rejecting review of a pretrial injunction for lack of finality. See Sargent County Bank v. Wentworth 434 N.W.2d 562 (Civil *243No. 870218, filed 1-9-89) (Meschke, Justice, concurring). As I have preached before, a Courchene remand “is not appropriate for every appeal of a non-final decision unem-bellished with an adequate expression that it should be treated as final.” Matter of Estate of Stuckle, 427 N.W.2d 96, 103 (N.D.1988) (Meschke, Justice, concurring). “Where unsettled issues are evident and are linked to those brought for review, piecemeal appeals should not be encouraged....” Id.
Therefore, I believe that our retention of jurisdiction here, pending further rulings by the trial court on remand, is inappropriate to even-handed application of the finality doctrine fixed in Rule 54(b). If we use it in this case, we can use it indiscriminately in any case. We should not so soon dissipate the bright line and certainty decreed in Sargent County Bank v. Wentworth, supra.