R.D.J. v. A.P.J.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 10/04/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120531 R.D.J. v. A.P.J. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (DR-08-101.02 and DR-08-101.03) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . A.P.J. ("the m o t h e r " ) a n d R.D.J. ("the f a t h e r " ) were d i v o r c e d b y a J u l y 24, 2009, j u d g m e n t o f t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court ("the t r i a l c o u r t " ) . Pursuant t o t h e d i v o r c e judgment, t h e p a r t i e s were a w a r d e d j o i n t legal custody of t h e i r three 2120531 minor children, the mother was awarded primary c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n , and t h e f a t h e r was visitation, In including overnight addition, insurance the father was visitation ordered awarded during to f o r t h e c h i l d r e n and t o p a y c h i l d 22, 2011, t h e t r i a l court liberal t h e week. provide health s u p p o r t and h a l f o f any m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s n o t c o v e r e d by h e a l t h On A p r i l physical one- insurance. granted the mother's r e q u e s t f o r e n f o r c e m e n t o f , and a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f , t h e d i v o r c e judgment. In i t s A p r i l 22, 2011, j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l court m o d i f i e d t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n and some o f t h e v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s of the d i v o r c e the t r i a l failure court to judgment. In a d d i t i o n , found the f a t h e r i n contempt of c o u r t pay The judgment. child trial support court as ordered determined the in forhis the divorce father's child- s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e and o r d e r e d t h e f a t h e r i n c a r c e r a t e d u n t i l he purged himself o f t h e c o n t e m p t by p a y i n g t h a t a r r e a r a g e . r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e f o r what l e n g t h o f t i m e , father was incarcerated pursuant to that The i f any, t h e April 22, 2011, contempt f i n d i n g . On A p r i l among o t h e r 19, 2012, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d t h i n g s , to modify the e a r l i e r 2 a petition seeking, j u d g m e n t s t o award 2120531 c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o h i m a n d t o have t h e m o t h e r h e l d i n contempt f o r her alleged interference with his visitation rights. Also on A p r i l modify the e a r l i e r sought t o modify 19, 2012, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d attorney fee, judgments. I n h e r p e t i t i o n , t h e mother the father's visitation, a n d t o have t h e f a t h e r h e l d continued f a i l u r e an a w a r d o f an i n contempt f o r h i s t o make p a y m e n t s , i n c l u d i n g o r d e r e d under t h e p r e v i o u s judgments. child support, The m o t h e r a l s o a pendente l i t e order suspending t h e f a t h e r ' s the a petition to sought visitation with children. Allegations by t h e p a r t i e s ' daughter t h a t h e r form sexually abused dispute. I t a l s o a p p e a r s o t h e r abuse a l l e g a t i o n s were made b y the p a r t i e s ' sons. o f t h e p a r t i e s ' 2012 A t the time the A p r i l t o m o d i f y were f i l e d , was the basis the f a t h e r had 19, 2012, p e t i t i o n s t h e S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e abuse a l l e g a t i o n s . Given the nature of the a l l e g a t i o n s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e r e c o r d appointed court parties a guardian also by ad l i t e m consolidated the f i l i n g f o r the children. t h e two a c t i o n s of t h e i r 3 separate s e a l e d and The initiated April trial by t h e 19, 2012, 2120531 p e t i t i o n s t o modify. The t r i a l court also entered a pendente l i t e order modifying the f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n with the daughter to daytime hours On only. September 4, motion t o withdraw, the 2012, t h e f a t h e r ' s stating as a b a s i s a t t o r n e y m i g h t be c a l l e d attorney filed f o r that motion as a c h a r a c t e r w i t n e s s that f o r the f a t h e r d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s , w h i c h , a t t h a t was s c h e d u l e d the trial withdraw. f o r S e p t e m b e r 14, 2012. court entered New c o u n s e l an order time, On S e p t e m b e r 6, 2012, granting then f i l e d a the motion to a n o t i c e o f a p p e a r a n c e on behalf of the father. Also on September 4, 2012, the parties and their a t t o r n e y s s i g n e d an a g r e e m e n t ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e memorandum a g r e e m e n t " ) c o n c e r n i n g visitation with the the f a t h e r ' s pendente children. The September memorandum a g r e e m e n t i s d a t e s t a m p e d as h a v i n g 4, lite 2012, been f i l e d i n open c o u r t on S e p t e m b e r 4, 2012, a n d t h a t memorandum a g r e e m e n t contains the n o t a t i o n : on the case-action that the t r i a l was " T r i a l d a t e 11/14/2012." summary d a t e d scheduled S e p t e m b e r 6, A notation 2012, s t a t e s f o r November 14, 2012. S e p t e m b e r 25, 2012, t h e t r i a l court 4 entered a written On order 2120531 i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e t e r m s o f t h e memorandum a g r e e m e n t , and order the specifically merits was included a statement that scheduled memorandum a g r e e m e n t was for November the 14, that hearing 2012. a l s o f i l e d i n the t r i a l - c o u r t on The clerk's o f f i c e and e n t e r e d on t h e c a s e - a c t i o n summary on S e p t e m b e r 25, 2012. On November 5, 2012, the mother again f a t h e r h e l d i n contempt f o r h i s c o n t i n u e d support and for failing support arrearage. The court entered f a i l u r e t o pay t o make p a y m e n t s t o w a r d t h e mother r e q u e s t e d i n c a r c e r a t e d as a s a n c t i o n the t r i a l moved t o have f o r the an o r d e r t h a t the contempt. scheduling the scheduled hearing modification It on the be 8, i t s consideration merits t h a t the mother, her that the father did November 14, 2012, the father "of 2012, of the the parties' petitions. i s undisputed withdraw, child- November On attorney, f a t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y a p p e a r e d f o r t h e November 14, but child father o f t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t f o r November 14, date of the stating in not that attend that father's new motion that hearing. attorney he had the matters c u r r e n t l y pending b e f o r e 5 2012, and the hearing Also on moved to advised this the court." 2120531 The t r i a l court granted h e a r i n g began. contained t h a t motion t o withdraw before the A t r a n s c r i p t of the ore tenus h e a r i n g i s not i n t h e r e c o r d on appeal. On November 15, 2012, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment i n w h i c h i t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , d e n i e d t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n to modify, awarded the mother sole legal custody of the p a r t i e s ' t h r e e c h i l d r e n , and m o d i f i e d t h e f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d r e n . the guardian mother. willful ad The t r i a l litem's c o u r t ordered the f a t h e r t o pay f e e and I n a d d i t i o n , the t r i a l an attorney court found fee f o r the the father i n contempt f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t , and i t issued a w r i t of a r r e s t f o r the father. On November 20, 2012, t h e t r i a l court entered an order g r a n t i n g an o r a l m o t i o n b y t h e f a t h e r t o w i t h d r a w o r s e t a s i d e the writ of a r r e s t . The mother represents i n her brief submitted t o t h i s c o u r t t h a t b y November 20, 2012, t h e f a t h e r had the child-support arrearage paid on w h i c h t h e contempt f i n d i n g s u p p o r t i n g t h e w r i t o f a r r e s t had been based. On December 14, 2012, t h e f a t h e r , a g a i n the represented attorney to who character witness had p r e v i o u s l y withdrawn serve as by a f o r the f a t h e r , f i l e d a postjudgment motion 6 2120531 p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 1 I n t h a t December 14, 2012, m o t i o n , t h e f a t h e r s o u g h t t o s e t a s i d e t h e t r i a l November various 15, 2012, d e f a u l t arguments court hearing filed 2 The f a t h e r asserted i n t h a t p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , b u t he d i d n o t submit any s u p p o r t i n g trial judgment. court's evidence i n support of that motion. The scheduled the f a t h e r ' s postjudgment motion f o r a on J a n u a r y 30, 2 0 1 3 . an o p p o s i t i o n I n J a n u a r y 2013, t h e mother t o t h e f a t h e r ' s postjudgment motion. I n one p a r a g r a p h o f h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e f a t h e r q u o t e s a p o r t i o n o f R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. However, i n t h a t December 14, 2012, p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e f a t h e r made no a r g u m e n t p e r t a i n i n g t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) a n d d i d n o t s e e k r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o t h a t r u l e . The s u b s t a n c e o f a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n g o v e r n s t h e manner i n w h i c h i t i s c o n s t r u e d . Ex p a r t e A l f a Mut. Gen. I n s . Co., 684 So. 2d 1 2 8 1 , 1282 ( A l a . 1996) . A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e f a t h e r ' s December 14, 2012, p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i s c o n f i n e d t o s e e k i n g t o s e t a s i d e t h e November 15, 2012, j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 1 We a g r e e w i t h t h e p a r t i e s ' c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e November 15, 2012, j u d g m e n t a s one e n t e r e d b y d e f a u l t . " W h i l e a f a i l u r e t o answer a c o m p l a i n t i s a common b a s i s f o r t h e e n t r y o f a d e f a u l t , a d e f a u l t may be e n t e r e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , i n c l u d i n g ... a f a i l u r e t o a p p e a r a t t r i a l . " Sumlin v. S u m l i n , 931 So. 2d 40, 46 n. 2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; s e e a l s o R u l e 5 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ("[J]udgment b y d e f a u l t may be e n t e r e d b y t h e c o u r t on t h e d a y t h e c a s e i s s e t f o r t r i a l w i t h o u t [ t h e ] t h r e e (3) d a y s n o t i c e " r e q u i r e d when a p a r t y h a s n o t f i l e d an a p p e a r a n c e i n t h e a c t i o n . ) . 2 7 2120531 On F e b r u a r y 1, 2013, a f t e r t h e t r i a l the a c o u r t had conducted J a n u a r y 30, 2013, p o s t j u d g m e n t h e a r i n g , t h e f a t h e r supplement that t o h i s postjudgment t h e copy motion o f t h e memorandum i n which agreement filed he a r g u e d located by h i s attorney d i d not contain a notation concerning the scheduled trial by date. alleging The m o t h e r that responded t o t h a t supplemental f i l i n g her copy of t h e memorandum agreement c o n t a i n e d t h e n o t a t i o n s c h e d u l i n g t h e h e a r i n g f o r November 14, 2013; t h e mother also alleged that during r e s u l t e d i n t h e memorandum a g r e e m e n t , scheduled after the parties the meeting the t r i a l had c o n s u l t e d that d a t e had been with the court's staff. On February postjudgment 6, order 2013, stating the trial that court i t had entered considered a the arguments o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e f a t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and the mother's o p p o s i t i o n t o t h a t motion, t h e f a t h e r ' s F e b r u a r y 1, 2013, s u p p l e m e n t official 193." electronic t o h i s postjudgment file motion, on A l a C o u r t P l u s , and " t h e especially page I n i t s F e b r u a r y 6, 2013, p o s t j u d g m e n t o r d e r , t h e t r i a l court denied the f a t h e r ' s postjudgment motion seeking t o s e t a s i d e t h e November 15, 2013, d e f a u l t 8 judgment. 2120531 On March "motion 11, 2013, t h e f a t h e r to reconsider judgment." In that extensive argument considering among o t h e r court [the father's] motion, lacks set forth motion." h i s own a f f i d a v i t . jurisdiction court's by not judgment. In to However, " [ a ] t r i a l entertain a successive t h e same o r s i m i l a r denial r e l i e f as reconsideration of the o r i g i n a l postjudgment G r e e n v. G r e e n , 43 So. 3d 1242, 1244 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009); see a l s o 627 relevant f o r a default the o r i g i n a l postjudgment motion o r r e q u e s t i n g the t r i a l a more 11, 2013, m o t i o n , t h e f a t h e r s u b m i t t e d , postjudgment motion requesting of titled to s e t aside to the factors a request to set aside things, a motion motion the father pertaining s u p p o r t o f h i s March filed Gold K i s t , I n c . v. G r i f f i n , 659 So. 2d 626, ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) ( " S u c c e s s i v e p o s t - j u d g m e n t t h e same p a r t y , allowed."). seeking Thus, over t h i s matter a f t e r aside the default 2013, successive essentially the t r i a l motions t h e same r e l i e f , a r e court had l o s t jurisdiction i t denied the f a t h e r ' s motion t o s e t judgment. We n o t e t h a t postjudgment a l t e r n a t i v e t o h i s arguments motion, i n h i s March 11, the father, under Rule 5 5 ( c ) , a l s o to seek r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o Rule 60(b), 9 as an purported A l a . R. C i v . P. Even 2120531 assuming t h a t the f a t h e r p r o p e r l y requested 60(b), see 2010), the March 11, Ex parte possible 2013, Haynes , pendency motion n o n f i n a l so as court. Rule Ala. subdivision 60(b), does not of does rulings 58 that not R. the judgment t h a t w i l l part 765-66 of the the on P. motion ("A finality Therefore, o r d e r d e n y i n g h i s December 14, 761, review Civ. affect 3d render to prevent suspend i t s o p e r a t i o n . " ) . final So. r e l i e f under Rule 2012, the (Ala. father's trial court's a p p e a l by of this under this a judgment February 6, or 2013, postjudgment motion i s a s u p p o r t an appeal, and the father's appeal i s timely. The in f a t h e r c o n t e n d s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l denying h i s motion seeking 2012, d e f a u l t judgment. The to set aside trial the court November c o u r t has b r o a d r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t . v. Bailey, Philyaw, 909 determining So. So. 2d 2d 1149, 200, 1152 202 whether to grant (Ala. trial the resolved practicable. should be Civ. 2006); App. Zeller Rudolph v. 2005) . In o r t o deny a m o t i o n t o s e t a d e f a u l t judgment, the action (Ala. court on must f i r s t the aside presume merits that whenever J o n e s v. Hydro-Wave o f A l a b a m a , I n c . , 524 10 15, discretion in 950 erred So. 2d 2120531 610, 613 against (Ala. the K i r t l a n d v. 600, 604 1988). That presumption be balanced promoting judicial economy. Sewer S e r v . , Inc., p o l i c y i n t e r e s t of F o r t Morgan A u t h . (Ala. 1988). Our supreme must court has 524 So. 2d established g u i d e l i n e s t o be f o l l o w e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n e x e r c i s i n g i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n determining to set aside w h e t h e r t o g r a n t o r t o deny a m o t i o n a d e f a u l t judgment: "[A] t r i a l court's broad d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y u n d e r R u l e 5 5 ( c ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] s h o u l d n o t be e x e r c i s e d without c o n s i d e r i n g the f o l l o w i n g three f a c t o r s : 1) w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t has a m e r i t o r i o u s d e f e n s e ; 2) w h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f w i l l be u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c e d i f t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t i s s e t a s i d e ; and 3) w h e t h e r t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t was a r e s u l t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s own c u l p a b l e c o n d u c t . " K i r t l a n d v. F o r t Morgan A u t h . Sewer S e r v . , I n c . , 524 605. See So. 2d 869, and t h e b u r d e n o f t h e movant w i t h r e g a r d Kirtland On each of also T r i p l e D Trucking, 872-73 So. 2d I n c . v. T r i S a n d s , I n c . , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) ( d i s c u s s i n g the to each of the at 840 law three factors). appeal, the the three father Kirtland asserts arguments factors. 3 The pertaining trial to court's We n o t e t h a t , i n s u p p o r t o f h i s argument on a p p e a l , t h e f a t h e r c i t e s as s u p p o r t i n g f a c t s e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e a f f i d a v i t and o t h e r documents t h a t were s u b m i t t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n his impermissible successive postjudgment motion that was 3 11 2120531 February 6, 2013, o r d e r considered the expressly arguments of s t a t e s t h a t the c o u r t had the parties during p o s t j u d g m e n t h e a r i n g a n d a l l t h e p a r t i e s ' f i l i n g s made its ruling. The trial court also stated considered "the o f f i c i a l electronic file especially page Page 193." 193 memorandum a g r e e m e n t t h a t c o n t a i n s of that record the notation 11/14/2012" a n d i s d a t e s t a m p e d as h a v i n g before i t had on A l a C o u r t that c o u r t on S e p t e m b e r 4, 2012, a n d as h a v i n g Plus, i s the "Trial been f i l e d been f i l e d the date i n open i n the t r i a l - c o u r t c l e r k ' s o f f i c e on S e p t e m b e r 25, 2012. We c o n c l u d e that that finding i n d i c a t e s that the t r i a l the t h i r d K i r t l a n d f a c t o r , court considered i . e . , the c u l p a b l e conduct of the f a t h e r , and t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e s o l v e d t h a t K i r t l a n d f a c t o r against the regarding trial However, the p r o p r i e t y court's considered father. of that j u d g m e n t does the other we make no determination determination not demonstrate because the that the court two f a c t o r s u n d e r K i r t l a n d . submitted t o the t r i a l c o u r t a f t e r i t had entered i t s February 6, 2013, p o s t j u d g m e n t o r d e r a n d h a d l o s t j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r this matter. Accordingly, t h a t e v i d e n c e h a s n o t been c o n s i d e r e d by t h i s c o u r t . 12 2120531 Although the the t r i a l arguments before court of the p a r t i e s i t s ruling, the t r i a l stated that i t had and a l l o f t h e i r considered filings c o u r t ' s F e b r u a r y 6, 2013, o r d e r does n o t e x p l i c i t l y r e f e r e n c e t h e o t h e r two K i r t l a n d Specifically, order that made contains no determination factors. as t o w h e t h e r t h e f a t h e r h a d a m e r i t o r i o u s d e f e n s e o r as t o w h e t h e r there w o u l d be p r e j u d i c e t o t h e m o t h e r and c h i l d r e n i f the November 15, 2012, j u d g m e n t was s e t a s i d e a n d t h e m o t h e r was r e q u i r e d t o a g a i n p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e on t h e m e r i t s . Westmoreland, I n W h i t e v. 680 So. 2d 348, 349 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) , t h i s c o u r t h e l d t h a t when t h e r e c o r d does n o t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d each o f t h e t h r e e K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s , t h e judgment must be r e v e r s e d determination. (Ala. a n d t h e c a u s e remanded See a l s o J e n k i n s v . Moss, f o r such a 66 So. 3d 803, 807 C i v . App. 2011) ( r e v e r s i n g a n d r e m a n d i n g f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r an o r d e r a p p l y i n g K i r t l a n d when i t a p p e a r e d t h e trial court had c o n s i d e r e d only one o f t h e t h r e e Kirtland factors). Accordingly, we reverse the t r i a l court's 2013, o r d e r a n d remand t h e c a u s e f o r t h e t r i a l F e b r u a r y 6, court to enter an o r d e r c o n t a i n i n g f i n d i n g s p e r t a i n i n g t o a l l t h r e e 13 Kirtland 2120531 factors. This 4 construed default Kirtland to mean t h a t judgment, only holding, the trial that the however, court trial " i s not must be aside the must a p p l y court set to the f a c t o r s i n d e c i d i n g whether to s e t a s i d e the d e f a u l t judgment." The court's W h i t e v. W e s t m o r e l a n d , 680 appellee's request f o r an So. attorney 2d a t f e e on 349. appeal is denied. REVERSED AND Pittman, REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thomas, Moore, and Donaldson, J J . , concur. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e f a t h e r a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have a f f o r d e d him r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , we c o n c l u d e t h a t s u c h an argument i s n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s court. Even a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r p r o p e r l y s o u g h t r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 60(b) i n h i s M a r c h 11, 2013, m o t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t has n o t r u l e d on t h a t r e q u e s t . Therefore, there i s no a d v e r s e r u l i n g on t h e p u r p o r t e d R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , and t h i s c o u r t t h e r e f o r e does n o t a d d r e s s t h e f a t h e r ' s a r g u m e n t s b a s e d on R u l e 6 0 ( b ) . See, e.g., Ex p a r t e R.S.C., 853 So. 2d 228, 233-34 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) ("A R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n does n o t b r i n g up f o r r e v i e w t h e m e r i t s o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g j u d g m e n t and i s i n s t e a d a c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k on t h e j u d g m e n t . I t does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend i t s o p e r a t i o n . " ) ; and Rhodes v. Rhodes, 38 So. 3d 54, 63 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( " [ B ] e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t has n o t yet e x p r e s s l y r u l e d on t h e h u s b a n d ' s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , i t i s s t i l l p e n d i n g b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h e r e has b e e n no f i n a l o r d e r on t h a t m o t i o n f r o m w h i c h t o a p p e a l . " ) . 4 14

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.