Brown v. Northwestern

Brown v. Northwestern

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Donna L. Brown,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Northwestern National Casualty Company and
Highlands Insurance Group dba Highlands Insurance Company,

Defendants and Appellees.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20050399-CA
 

F I L E D
(June 30, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 296

 

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department, 040917669

The Honorable Joseph C. Fratto Jr.

Attorneys: Steven C. Tycksen and Chad C. Shattuck, Murray, for Appellant

S. Baird Morgan and Michael K. Woolley, Salt Lake City, for Appellees

-----

Before Judges Davis, Jackson, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

    Donna L. Brown appeals from the district court's order granting a stay in proceedings below. This matter is before the court on Appellees Northwestern National Casualty Company and Highlands Insurance Group's (collectively Highlands) motion for summary disposition. Highlands argues that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal due to the absence of a final, appealable order. We agree.

    "For an order to constitute a final judgment, it must end the controversy between the litigants. . . . In other words, to be considered a final order, the trial court's decision must dispose of the claims of all parties." Loffredo v. Holt, 2001 UT 97,¶12, 37 P.3d 1070.

    The district court specifically stated during oral argument that it was imposing a stay rather than dismissing the underlying action, pending the outcome of proceedings in Texas. Thus, the order imposing a stay did not "end the controversy between the litigants." Id.; see also In re J.W., 950 P.2d 939, 940 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (holding that appeal from a motion to stay an adjudication pending resolution of criminal charges was not taken from an order or judgment that was eligible for certification under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)). The order is not a final order for purposes of appeal.

    Because the district court's order granting a stay is not a final appealable order and a proper petition for permission to appeal an interlocutory order was not filed, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See Utah R. App. P. 5. When this court lacks jurisdiction, the appeal must be dismissed. See Loffredo, 2001 UT 97 at ¶11.

    Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal after a final judgment has been entered or as otherwise permitted by law.

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge