Aerotechnics, Inc. v. Aliengena v. Caka
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---In re: Cessna P-210 Turbo Registration No. N3549D ______________________________ Aerotechnics, Inc., Plaintiff, Counterdefendant, and Appellant, v. Anthony Gerald Aliengena, Defendant, Counterclaimant, and Appellee. ______________________________ Anthony Gerald Aliengena, Third-party Plaintiff and Appellee, v. John Caka, Third-party Defendant and Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20080047-CA F I L E D (March 27, 2008) 2008 UT App 110 ----Third District, Salt Lake Department, 060909297 The Honorable Robert P. Faust Attorneys: Timothy Miguel Willardson, Salt Lake City, for Appellants Michael R. Johnson and David H. Leigh, Salt Lake City, for Appellee ----- Before Judges Greenwood, Thorne, and Billings. PER CURIAM: Aerotechnics, Inc. and John Caka (collectively, Aerotechnics) seek to appeal the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Appellee Anthony Aliengena. This is before the court on Aliengena's motion for summary disposition based on lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of a final order. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final orders and judgments. See Utah R. App. P. 3(a); Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 9, 5 P.3d 649. To be final, a court's order "must dispose of all parties and claims to an action." Bradbury, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 10. Accordingly, an order is not final when counterclaims remain pending before the trial court. See id. ¶ 11. Additionally, "a trial court must even determine attorney fee awards before a judgment is final." Id. ¶ 10. The trial court's order dismissed Aerotechnics's complaint entirely and granted relief on one of seven counterclaims asserted by Aliengena. The other counterclaims remain pending before the trial court. Additionally, although the trial court awarded attorney fees, it did not fix the amount. Because attorney fees and counterclaims remain pending below, the order is not a final order for purposes of appeal. See id. Where an appeal is not properly taken, this court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal. See id. ¶ 8. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal after entry of a final order. ______________________________ Pamela T. Greenwood, Presiding Judge ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Associate Presiding Judge ______________________________ Judith M. Billings, Judge 20080047-CA 2
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.
