Court Opinion

ID: 9961077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 19:14:00.400581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:11.745578
License: Public Domain

04/17/2024
                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                                 AT JACKSON
                                        January 9, 2024 Session

           CHAUNCEY HOPKINS v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.

                        Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County
                          No. CT-2657-21     Mary L. Wagner, Judge
                           ___________________________________

                                 No. W2023-00318-COA-R3-CV
                             ___________________________________

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s decision to exclude his experts and to grant summary
judgment to the defendant. Because plaintiff has appealed a non-final judgment and the
record on appeal is incomplete, we dismiss this appeal.

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

J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ARNOLD B.
GOLDIN and KENNY ARMSTRONG, JJ., joined.

Danny C. Garland, II, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Chauncey Hopkins.

Robert A. Cox and Ronna D. Kinsella, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, United
Parcel Service, Inc.

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION1

                           I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

          On July 1, 2021, Plaintiff/Appellant Chauncey Hopkins (“Plaintiff”) filed a

1
    Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee provides:

          This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse
          or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion
          would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it
          shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not
          be cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.
complaint for damages against Defendant Bernard Moore and Defendant/Appellee United
Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS” or “Defendant”) in the Shelby County Circuit Court (“the trial
court”). Therein, Plaintiff alleged that he was injured in an automobile accident with a UPS
truck driven by Mr. Moore in the course and scope of Mr. Moore’s employment with UPS.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Mr. Moore “abruptly slowed down to make a right turn
into a private drive for a UPS facility”; “was using his cell phone at the time and failed to
use his turning signal prior to making the right turn”; and “swerved his vehicle to the left,
crossing at least partially into the left lane, then veered back through the right lane as he
attempted to turn into the UPS facility.” Mr. Moore’s negligence, Plaintiff submitted,
caused Plaintiff to rear-end the UPS truck, as Plaintiff “did not have an opportunity to avoid
the collision[.]” Plaintiff raised claims for negligence; negligence per se; negligent hiring,
training, supervision, and entrustment; and vicarious liability. According to Plaintiff, as a
result of the collision, he suffered serious physical injuries, resulting in medical bills, lost
wages, and pain and suffering totaling $1,000,000.00.

       UPS filed an answer on December 27, 2021. Mr. Moore, however, was not promptly
served with the complaint. So UPS moved for a show cause order explaining why Plaintiff
intentionally delayed service on Mr. Moore, and for an order dismissing the case in its
entirety as time-barred.

       In December 2021, UPS sent its first written discovery requests to Plaintiff. Of note
to this appeal, UPS’s interrogatories asked Plaintiff to provide specific information
concerning his experts, including “a full and current copy of the curriculum vitae of any
expert You intend to call at the trial of this matter.” The interrogatory warned that if
Plaintiff failed to comply, UPS would object to Plaintiff offering expert testimony in the
future. Plaintiff eventually responded to UPS’s requests on February 22, 2022, indicating
that he had “not decided on which, if any, expert witnesses may be called at trial[.]”
Plaintiff therefore reserved the right to supplement his response.

        On April 18, 2022, UPS filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiff and
filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery, related to what UPS deemed
Plaintiff’s deficient discovery responses. UPS also asked that its requests for admission be
deemed admitted.

       On June 21, 2022, the trial court entered an order adjudicating several of UPS’s
requests. Specifically, the trial court (1) denied UPS’s motion to dismiss; (2) granted UPS’s
motion to deem admitted several requests for admission; (3) granted UPS’s motion to
compel as to a number of interrogatories; and (4) denied, without prejudice, UPS’s motion
for Rule 11 sanctions. On the same day, the parties entered into an agreed scheduling order,
which provided that Plaintiff’s expert disclosures were due on October 7, 2022; this date
was later extended to October 24, 2022 by apparent agreement of the parties.2

       2
           As discussed, infra, although the parties appear to agree that this was the relevant date, the order
                                                     -2-
       Plaintiff was thereafter permitted to amend his complaint; the amended complaint
named only UPS as a defendant. UPS answered the amended complaint and filed a motion
to dismiss and to strike portions of the amended complaint.

       On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed supplemental responses to UPS’s
interrogatories. Relevant to the question regarding experts, Plaintiff disclosed four experts:
Apurva Rashmikant Dalal, M.D., a causation expert; David R. Strauser, Ph.D., a vocational
expert; Robert Vance, C.P.A., a lost earning capacity expert; and Jason Walton, an accident
reconstructionist. Plaintiff described generally what each expert would testify to, explained
the vague grounds for each expert’s opinion, and then stated that each expert’s
“qualifications and CV will be provided.” Plaintiff also stated that a list of past cases each
expert was involved with would be provided and that an expert report would be provided.
       On November 3, 2022, UPS filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s “purported ‘expert
disclosures,’” based on Plaintiff’s deficient and untimely disclosures. Plaintiff responded
in opposition on November 14, 2022, admitting that his responses were “incomplete in that
the Plaintiff had not received the latest copies of the CV’s, case lists or any report of its
experts,” Plaintiff argued that he “provided ample information to allow the Defendant to
identify the identity of the experts and the general areas of expertise which they were
intended to testify.”

        UPS filed a reply to Plaintiff’s response on November 16, 2022, ostensibly to inform
the trial court of “several events [that] have transpired” since it filed its initial motion to
strike. Therein, UPS noted that in addition to the deficient expert disclosures, Plaintiff
allegedly refused to provide available dates for UPS to depose Plaintiff. UPS further
asserted that on November 8, 2022, after the expert disclosure deadline, Plaintiff did
provide UPS with CVs and “case lists” for his experts, but UPS asserted that other required
information was still not disclosed and the case lists were insufficient. For example,
Plaintiff failed to identify a single case that Dr. Dalal had previously testified in within the
last four years. Plaintiff then updated his disclosures once again on November 9, 2022, to
disclose the total compensation paid to each expert. Finally, on November 14, 2022,
Plaintiff produced an expert report from Dr. Dalal, but the report, according to UPS, failed
to identify the specific documents he relied upon. And the report indicated that Plaintiff
did not appear for the medical examination until November 2, 2022, after the expert
disclosure deadline. Because of the late and still deficient expert disclosures, UPS asked
that the entire action be involuntarily dismissed.

       On November 17, 2022, UPS filed a motion for summary judgment and a statement
of undisputed material facts. In its motion, UPS recited the issues that it had experienced
in discovery with Plaintiff and the fact that Plaintiff had not requested an extension of time
for additional discovery. UPS therefore argued that because “there is no testimony or other
form of admissible evidence presented by the Plaintiff which can be used to support his

setting this date is not included in the appellate record.
                                                     -3-
claims in this case[,]” UPS “is entitled to summary judgment in this case.”3

        Plaintiff responded to UPS’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that even if the
trial court struck Plaintiff’s experts, “Plaintiff has an absolute right to testify in his own
cause and cannot be stricken as such.” Plaintiff further asserted that the only facts in the
record are contained in his complaint and create triable issues as to the negligence of UPS’s
employee and whether the claim of negligence per se is valid. In support of his argument,
Plaintiff filed a statement of alternative material facts; each of the facts was supported by
a reference to the amended complaint.

        On December 16, 2022, the trial court entered an order granting in part and denying
in part UPS’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s experts. Therein, the trial court ruled that

       Plaintiff has had numerous deficiencies in responding to discovery and has
       been granted numerous extensions and additional time to answer discovery
       and to comply with the Scheduling Order deadlines set by this Court. Most
       of those extensions, if not all of them, have been given over the Defendant’s
       strenuous objections. The deadline for the Plaintiff to disclose his experts in
       this matter was extended, over Defendant’s objections, to October 24, 2022.
       Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the October 24, 2022 deadline. The “expert
       disclosures” that were on file for the Plaintiff as of October 24th are the
       supplemental answers to interrogatories filed by the Plaintiff on October
       13th. Following a review of these supplemental answers, the Court finds that
       the “disclosures” of Dr. Dalal, Dr. Strauser, Mr. Vance and Mr. Walton are
       not in compliance with Rule 26.03. The Court will therefore strike each of
       Plaintiff’s proposed experts as they were not properly identified.

The trial court denied, however, UPS’s request that the action be involuntarily dismissed
in its entirety.4

       On February 2, 2023, UPS filed a reply in support of its motion for summary
judgment, arguing that Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion by pointing to evidence,
rather than his complaint. On the same day, UPS also renewed its motion for Rule 11
sanctions, seeking attorney’s fees, expenses, and other monetary sanctions. A hearing on
the pending motion for summary judgment was held on February 8, 2024. Plaintiff
responded in opposition to UPS’s renewed motion for Rule 11 sanctions on February 24,
2023, asking that the motion be denied.

       On February 28, 2023, the trial court entered an order granting UPS’s motion for

       3
          UPS also relied on a memorandum of law in support of its motion for summary judgment, but, as
discussed, infra, that memorandum is not part of the appellate record.
        4
          This order was later re-entered on February 9, 2023.
                                                 -4-
summary judgment. Therein, the trial court ruled that Plaintiff did not meet his burden
under Rule 56.06 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure because his response to
summary judgment “rest[ed] on his mere allegations as contained within his Complaint.”
In light of Plaintiff’s failure to deny any of UPS’s proffered material facts or submit facts
of his own, the trial court ruled that UPS “demonstrated that the Plaintiff cannot prove any
of the essential elements of his claim, namely duty, breach of duty, causation or damages,
and therefore the Defendant is entitled to Summary Judgement as a matter of law.” Plaintiff
then filed a notice of appeal to this Court on March 3, 2023.

                                           II. ANALYSIS

       On appeal, Plaintiff raises two issues related to the trial court’s exclusion of his
experts and the grant of summary judgment to UPS. UPS raises an additional issue
requesting attorney’s fees incurred in this appeal. Under Rule 13 of the Tennessee Rules
of Appellate Procedure, however, this Court is also charged with considering whether this
Court has subject matter jurisdiction, whether or not the issue is presented for review. Tenn.
R. App. P. 13(a). After our review, we conclude that we lack subject matter jurisdiction
over this appeal.

       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 Est. 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 Est. of Henderson,
121 S.W.3d at 645. Except where otherwise provided, this Court only has subject matter
jurisdiction over final orders. See Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553, 559 (Tenn.
1990). But see Tenn. R. App. 9 (governing discretionary interlocutory appeals for which
no final judgment is necessary); Tenn. R. App. 10 (discussing discretionary extraordinary
appeals for which no final judgment is necessary).

        In this case, all of the claims of all of the parties have not been resolved. Specifically,
on February 2, 2023, UPS renewed its motion for Rule 11 sanctions, seeking an award of
attorney’s fees incurred in defending against Plaintiff’s claims. The trial court specifically
contemplated that the Rule 11 request could be renewed when it denied UPS’s first motion
without prejudice. The record on appeal, however, contains no order adjudicating UPS’s
renewed request for sanctions. As such, at least from what we can glean from the record,
this request, filed well before the trial court entered its order granting summary judgment
to UPS, is still pending.5

       5
          Plaintiff clearly viewed the renewed Rule 11 sanctions motion as a live controversy
notwithstanding that the motion for summary judgment had been heard, as Plaintiff responded to the Rule
                                                 -5-
        Generally, the failure to finalize an award of attorney’s fees renders an order non-
final for purposes of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., City of Jackson v.
Hersh, No. W2008-02360-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 2601380, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug.
25, 2009) (“This Court has concluded on several occasions that an order that fails to address
an outstanding request for attorney’s fees is not final.”); Scott v. Noland Co., No. 03A01-
9407-CV-00248, 1995 WL 11177, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 1995) (“Since there is no
order in the record before us finally disposing of the Plaintiffs’ claim for attorney fees at
the trial level, the ‘Final Judgment’ from which this appeal is being pursued is not a final
order and hence not appealable as of right under Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a).”). This principle
has been applied to attorney’s fees sought as Rule 11 sanctions. See Watson v. Bradley
Cnty. Sch. Bd., No. E2010-00964-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 332669, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App.
Jan. 28, 2011) (“We conclude that because the Trial Court has yet to rule on the defendants’
motion for Rule 11 sanctions, there is no final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.”).

       It is true that this Court may suspend the finality requirement for good cause shown.
See Bayberry Assocs., 783 S.W.2d at 559 (holding that the finality requirement of Rule
3(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure could be waived under Tenn. R. App.
P. 2, which allows the suspension of our appellate procedure rules for good cause, except
as to certain rules not applicable here). As this Court has explained,

        We have previously found good cause to suspend the final judgment
        requirement, inter alia, where the judgment appealed adjudicated all of the
        rights of a party and a delay would prejudice the party’s rights, see White v.
        Johnson, 522 S.W.3d 417, 421 n.1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016); where the trial
        court’s reasoning applied equally to both the adjudicated and non-
        adjudicated claims, see Utley v. Tennessee Dep’t of Correction, 118 S.W.3d
        705, 711 n.9 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003); where a case has been ongoing for over
        ten “tortured” years and is on its third appeal, see Ruff v. Raleigh Assembly
        of God Church, Inc., No. W2001-02578-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 21729442,
        at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 14, 2003); and where the judgment did not
        adjudicate claims against certain defendants but the pleadings contained “no
        competent allegations regarding the defendants in any of the pleadings.” See
        Ravenwood Homeowners Ass’n v. Bailey, No. C.A. 758, 1988 WL 87676,
        at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 1988).

Levitt, Hamilton, & Rothstein, LLC v. Asfour, 587 S.W.3d 1, 10 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).
None of these considerations is present in this case.

11 motion after the hearing on UPS’s motion for summary judgment. And while the trial court re-entered
its order granting UPS’s motion to strike on February 9, 2022, a few days following the renewed motion
for sanctions, this Order states only that “[a]t this time, the [c]ourt does not find the need to issue other
sanctions in the form of dismissal.” (Emphasis added). As such, this order cannot be construed as denying
UPS’s request for attorney’s fees under Rule 11.
                                                   -6-
       Moreover, other matters lead us to conclude that this is not an appropriate case in
which we should exercise good cause to consider this appeal. Specifically, the record on
appeal omits a number of documents that UPS attempts to rely upon in its brief. Rule 24
of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure provides the guidelines as to what should
be included in the appellate record, including “all papers filed in the trial court” except
those excluded by the rule. Tenn. R. App. P. 24(a). Rule 24 also specifies that

        If less than the full record on appeal as defined in this subdivision is deemed
        sufficient to convey a fair, accurate and complete account of what transpired
        with respect to those issues that are the bases of appeal or if a party wishes
        to include any papers specifically excluded in this subdivision, the party
        shall, within 15 days after filing the notice of appeal, file with the clerk of
        the trial court and serve on the appellee a description of the parts of the record
        the appellant intends to include on appeal, accompanied by a short and plain
        declaration of the issues the appellant intends to present on appeal. If the
        appellee deems any other parts of the record to be necessary, the appellee
        shall, within 15 days after service of the description and declaration, file with
        the clerk of the trial court and serve on the appellant a designation of
        additional parts to be included. All parts of the record described or designated
        by the parties shall be included by the clerk of the trial court as the record on
        appeal.

Id. Rule 24 further provides that “[i]f any matter properly includable is omitted from the
record, is improperly included, or is misstated therein, the record may be corrected or
modified to conform to the truth.” Tenn. R. App. P. 24(e).

        The record on appeal contains no designation by Plaintiff asserting that less than the
full record is necessary. Yet, the record omits certain documents that should have been
included, such as an October 17, 2022 order extending the time for discovery, the
memorandum in support of UPS’s motion for summary judgment, and other papers filed
by the parties. So then, orders and pleadings critical to the two issues on appeal are missing
from the appellate record.

       In an attempt to ameliorate these omissions, UPS has attached several documents,
as well as transcripts from various motion hearings, to its brief as an appendix.6 This is not
the proper procedure. “Simply attaching a document to an appellate filing will not serve to
place it in the record on appeal, especially when it was not part of the record of the trial
court proceedings.” In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586, 591 n.3 (Tenn. 2010) (citing UT
Med. Group, Inc. v. Vogt, 235 S.W.3d 110, 122 (Tenn. 2007)). Rather, when documents
that could have been included are omitted from the record, the proper procedure is to

        6
             The purported appendix does not include an order adjudicating UPS’s renewed motion for
sanctions.
                                                 -7-
supplement the record in accordance with Rule 24(e). Id.; see also State v. Williamson,
No. M2010-01978-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 850711, at *14 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 13,
2012) (“Appellant may reproduce and attach as an appendix to her brief those parts of the
appellate record she deems essential for the Court to read in order to determine the issues
raised. However, the documents Appellant attached are not part of the actual record
received from the trial court and, therefore, cannot be considered by this Court as part of
the official record on appeal.”). And our rules certainly do “not contemplate attaching a
transcript of proceedings to a brief when the transcript has not been made a part of the
record.” State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 784 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990).

       Thus, while Plaintiff has attempted to appeal a non-final judgment, UPS has
attempted to rely on documents that were not properly part of the record rather than
supplement the record under Rule 24(e). Under these circumstances, we conclude that no
good cause exists to consider this appeal despite the clear procedural issues that plague it.
In the absence of a final, appealable order, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to
consider this appeal. This appeal is therefore dismissed.

                                     III. CONCLUSION

        This appeal is dismissed, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for all further
proceedings necessary and consistent with this Opinion. Costs of this appeal are taxed one-
half to Appellant Chauncey Hopkins, and one-half to Appellee United Parcel Service, Inc.,
for which execution may issue if necessary.

                                                   S/ J. Steven Stafford
                                                 J. STEVEN STAFFORD, JUDGE

                                             -8-