Court Opinion

ID: 9959965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 22:09:37.984183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:02.357605
License: Public Domain

04/12/2024
                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                             AT NASHVILLE
                                         April 10, 2024

  ANTHONY PARKER v. MANAGEMENT & MARKETING CONCEPTS,
                         INC.

                 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County
                          No. 81201 Terry A. Fann, Judge
                      ___________________________________

                             No. M2024-00273-COA-R3-CV
                         ___________________________________

This is an appeal from an order striking a demand for a jury trial. Because the order does
not resolve all of the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final
judgment.

                Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., P.J., M.S., ANDY D. BENNETT, and W. NEAL MCBRAYER, JJ.

Anthony Parker, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Cory Richard Miller, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Management & Marketing
Concepts, Inc.

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION1

        This appeal involves a tenant’s action against his landlord alleging negligence,
discrimination, and violation of the Uniform Residential Landlord Tenant Act. The tenant,
Anthony Parker, did not include a jury demand in his complaint. Upon learning of the
omission, Mr. Parker filed a Demand for Jury Trial on October 9, 2023. The landlord,
Management & Marketing Concepts, Inc. (“MMC”), moved to strike the Demand for Jury
Trial. The trial court heard the motion to strike on February 15, 2024, and entered an order
granting the motion to strike on March 8, 2024. On February 20, 2024, Mr. Parker filed a
notice of appeal from the order striking his Demand for Jury Trial. MMC has moved to

       1
         Under Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 10, a case decided by memorandum opinion shall not be
published and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.
dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

       A party is entitled to an appeal as of right only after the trial court has entered a final
judgment. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). A final judgment is a judgment that resolves all the claims
between all the parties, “leaving nothing else for the trial court to do.” In re Estate of
Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn. 2003) (quoting State ex rel. McAllister v. Goode,
968 S.W.2d 834, 840 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)). An order that adjudicates fewer than all the
claims between all the parties is subject to revision at any time before the entry of a final
judgment and is not appealable as of right. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a); In re Estate of Henderson,
121 S.W.3d at 645. Here, the trial court has not adjudicated any of the claims raised in Mr.
Parker’s complaint. All of those claims remain pending before the trial court.

       Mr. Parker appears to concede that the order appealed is interlocutory, but contends
that we should consider the appeal under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. Rule
10 permits this Court, in its discretion, to grant an extraordinary appeal from an
interlocutory order if the trial court has so far departed from the accepted and usual course
of judicial proceedings as to require immediate review or if necessary for a complete
determination of the action on appeal. However, Mr. Parker has not filed an application for
an extraordinary appeal or complied with any of the requirements of Rule 10. Even if Mr.
Parker had complied with the requirements of Rule 10, we cannot conclude from the record
before us that the trial court has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of
judicial proceedings as to require immediate review or that an extraordinary appeal is
necessary for a complete determination of the action on appeal.

       For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of a final
judgment. The dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a new appeal once a final
judgment has been entered. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion. Costs are taxed to appellant, Anthony Parker.

                                                                   PER CURIAM

                                              -2-