This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Can We Appeal Now? (Continued from page 5)


which expressly grants leave to amend;26 order denying motion for continuance;27 order denying challenge to the trial court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter;28


nying discovery.35 2. Compliance With Md. Rule 2-602: Maryland Rule 2-60236


or-


der of default under Rule 2-613(a), as distinct from order entering default judg- ment under Rule 2-613(e);29


order


denying certification of a suit as a class action;30


circumstances,”34 26


and, in the absence of “exceptional orders granting or de-


revise or set aside unenrolled judgment under Rule 2-535 (a)31 vacating judgment;32 trial;33


and order denying motion to order striking or


order granting a new


Moore, supra, 329 Md. at 431; National Glass, Inc. v. J.C. Penney Properties, Inc., 329 Md. 300, 302 (1993); Makovi v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 311 Md. 278, 281-82 (1987); Central Collection, supra,300 Md. at 323-24. The ex- piration of time granted by the court to amend does not serve to render final and appealable a dismissal with leave to amend. National Glass, supra, 329 Md. at 304-05.


27Smiley, supra, 12 Md. App. at 549. 28


Highfield Water Co. v. Washington County Sanitary District, 295 Md. 410, 415-16 (1983).


29


Curry v. Hillcrest Clinic, Inc., 337 Md. 412, 427 (1995)(default order is not a final deter- mination as to liability or appealable judg- ment). See also Banegura, supra, 312 Md. at 618; Adams, supra, 308 Md. at 459-60; Armiger Volunteer Fire Dept. v. Woomer, 123 Md. App. 580, 588 n. 13 (1998).


30 31 32


See generally Snowden v. Baltimore Gas & Elec- tric Co., 300 Md. 539, 559-63 (1984).


Stuples v. Baltimore, 119 Md. App. 221, 244- 46 (1998).


Owens v. Freeman 279 Md. 241, 245-49 (1977); Gay Investment Co. v. Angster, 231 Md. 318, 321-23 (1963).


33 34


Buck v. Cam’s Broadloom Rugs, Inc., 328 Md. 51, 57 (1992).


Public Service Commission v. Patuxent Val- ley Conservation League, 300 Md.200, 207 (1984).


carves out three


exceptions to the general rule against multiple appeals. The court may certify as judgments only those orders or rulings which: (1) dispose of at least one entire claim in a multiple claim action; (2) com- pletely adjudicate the rights and liabilities of one party in a multiple party action; or (3) grant partial summary judgment un- der Rule 2-501(e)(3) as to a portion of a claim for money relief only.37


Unless one


of these situations is present, the trial court is without authority to certify that there is no just reason for delay and to direct the entry of “judgment”; any purported certification of an order or ruling not within these exceptions is ineffective.38 a. An Entire Claim: Under the first exception, an entire claim in a mul- tiple claim action is potentially certifiable under Rule 2-602. It is often difficult to discern when an order involves the disposition of an entire claim in a multiple claim


35


No appeal ordinarily lies from a discovery or- der “unless it is tantamount to a denial of the means of further prosecuting the case.” Alford v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 227 Md. 45, 47 (1961). Ordinarily, an order directing or precluding the taking of a deposition is not a final appealable order. Breuer v. Flynn, 64 Md. App. 409, 414-15 (1985)(On occasion, discovery orders have been considered final and appealable. See, e.g., Goodwich v. Nolan, 343 Md. 130, 150-154 (1996)(order dismiss- ing physician’s petition for writ of mandamus to prevent Health Claims Arbitration Office (“HCAO”) from compelling him to produce privileged information was appealable in its own right as a final order; mandamus action was considered separate and independent from the HCAO proceeding and circuit court’s or- der concluded the rights of the parties, termi- nating the cause of action). 36Md. Rule 2-602.


37Canterbury, supra, 66 Md. App. at 642-43. 38Md. Rule 2-602.


action-which is potentially certifiable-or the disposition of part of a single claim supported by mul- tiple theories of recovery-which is not certifiable. The Court of Ap- peals has offered guidance for this determination:


A claim... must at least be a com- plete cause of action; if two purportedly separate “claims” are actually the same cause of action, then only one claim is presented. Different legal theories for the


same recovery based on the same facts or transaction, do not create separate “claims” for purposes of the rule. Moreover, where different items of damages or different rem- edies are sought for the same cause of action, multiple claims are not presented. As the Supreme Court stated [with regard to Federal Rule 54 (b)]: “It is sufficient to recog- nize that a complaint asserting only one legal right, even if seeking mul- tiple remedies for the alleged violation of that right, states a single claim for relief.”39


b. At Least One Party: The second exception to the rule against mul- tiple appeals, permitting certification of an order entering judgment in favor of at least one party in a multi-party action, has generated much less confusion than the multiple claims exception. To qualify for potential certification, the trial court’s order must com- pletely adjudicate the rights and liabilities of one party.40


If the court


enters an order which effectively disposes of all claims against the only party over whom the court has acquired jurisdiction, the judgment is considered final and appealable without certification under Rule 2- 602. Or, if a complaint is brought against two defendants and sum- mary judgment is granted in favor of the only defendant served, Rule 2-602 does not apply. However, certification of the judgment would be required if service were effected against the other defendant.41


Simi- 39


East v. Gilchrist, 293 Md. 453, 459 (1982)(quoting Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 743 n. 4 (1976), in connection with Federal Rule of Civil Proce- dure 54(b)).


40Planning Board, supra, 310 Md. at 652. 41


6 Trial Reporter


State Highway Administration, supra, 309 Md. at 529-32.


Summer 2000


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52