Court Opinion

ID: 9927417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-27 00:09:44.543335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:30.710737
License: Public Domain

01/26/2024
                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                             AT JACKSON
                           Assigned on Briefs January 8, 2024

  CARTER O’NEAL LOGISTICS ET AL v. EVANS PETREE, PC ET AL.

                   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County
                     No. CT-3989-22     Valerie L. Smith, Judge
                      ___________________________________

                           No. W2024-00048-COA-T10B-CV
                        ___________________________________

The Appellants seek accelerated interlocutory review of an order denying their motion to
recuse. Because the filing fails to comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we
dismiss the appeal.

     Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B Interlocutory Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

JEFFREY USMAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II,
and KENNY W. ARMSTRONG, JJ., joined.

Bruce S. Kramer and Bruce M. Smith, Memphis, Tennessee; and Worrick G. Robinson,
IV, and Seamus T. Kelly, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Carter O’Neal Logistics,
Inc., P&M Logistics, Inc., and Boris Penchion.

Richard Glassman, Lauran G. Stimac, and Brian Garrott, Memphis, Tennessee, for the
appellees, Evans Petree, PC and Daniel T. Robinson, Jr.

                                          OPINION

                                               I.

        Carter O’Neal Logistics, Inc., P&M Logistics, Inc., and Boris Penchion appeal the
trial court’s denial of their motion to recuse. The Appellants filed the motion to recuse in
November 2023. While not entirely clear from the record, it appears that the trial court
denied the motion to recuse shortly thereafter. However, the trial court’s order denying the
motion to recuse is not found in the record presented to this court.

       Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B governs the procedure for determining whether
a judge should preside over a case. If a trial court judge denies a request for disqualification
or recusal, the Rule provides two methods for seeking review. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B §
2.01. The denial “can be raised as an issue in an appeal as of right . . . following the entry
of the trial court’s judgment” under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 or the denial
“can be appealed in an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right” under section 2 of Rule
10B. Id.

       Here, the Appellants seek accelerated review. To seek an accelerated appeal, “a
petition for recusal appeal” must be filed. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B § 2.02. The petition must
contain:

       (a) A statement of the issues presented for review;
       (b) A statement of the facts, setting forth the facts relevant to the issues
       presented for review;
       (c) An argument, setting forth the contentions of the appellant with
       respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, including the
       reasons why the contentions require appellate relief, with citations to
       the authorities; and
       (d) A short conclusion, stating the precise relief sought.

Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B § 2.03. Rule 10B also requires that specific documents be included
with the petition:

       The petition shall be accompanied by a copy of the motion and all supporting
       documents filed in the trial court, a copy of the trial court’s order or opinion
       ruling on the motion, and a copy of any other parts of the trial court record
       necessary for determination of the appeal.

Id. (emphasis added).

        This court has observed that “the accelerated nature of these interlocutory appeals
as of right requires meticulous compliance with the provisions of Rule 10B regarding the
content of the record provided to this Court.” Adams v. Brittenum, No. W2023-00800-
COA-T10B-CV, 2023 WL 3861820, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2023), no perm. app.
filed (quoting Johnston v. Johnston, No. E2015-00213-COA-T10B-CV, 2015 WL 739606,
at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2015)). “Without such compliance, we cannot meet our
obligation to decide the appeal ‘on an expedited basis.’” Id. (quoting Johnston, 2015 WL
739606, at *2). Without a copy of the trial court’s order, we cannot review the trial court’s
decision or analyze its reasoning. See Judzewitsch v. Judzewitsch, No. E2022-00475-
COA-T10B-CV, 2022 WL 1279790, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2022), no perm. app.
filed (concluding that the failure to include a copy of the order prohibits this court from
determining if the appeal was timely).

       Here, while the petition is accompanied by the motion and various supporting
documents, it does not include a copy of the trial court’s order denying the motion. The
appellants cite to and reference the Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Recuse, even going

                                             -2-
so far as to label it as Exhibit 6, but they have failed to provide this court with a copy of
the order. Without a copy of this order, we are unable to review the trial court’s decision
regarding the motion to recuse.

       Because the Appellants have not complied with Supreme Court Rule 10B by failing
to include a copy of the order denying the motion to recuse, we dismiss the appeal. See
Adams, 2023 WL 3861820, at *2 (dismissing Rule 10B appeal because it was accompanied
by none of the required documents); Blevins v. Green, No. E2023-00295-COA-T10B-CV,
2023 WL 2398256, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2023), no perm. app. filed (dismissing
appeal where “notice of accelerated appeal is not accompanied by any additional
documents beyond the trial court’s order and an envelope”); Nisenbaum v. Nisenbaum, No.
M2021-01377-COA-T10B-CV, 2021 WL 5919114, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2021)
(dismissing appeal when petitioner “did not supply any of the required documents with her
petition”).

                                             II.

       For the aforementioned reasons, we dismiss the appeal. Costs of this appeal are
taxed to the Appellants, Carter O’Neal Logistics, Inc., P&M Logistics, Inc., and Boris
Penchion, for which execution may issue if necessary. The case is remanded for such
further proceedings as may be necessary and consistent with this opinion.

                                                   ________________________________
                                                   JEFFREY USMAN, JUDGE

                                            -3-