Mobile Echocardiography v. DAT&K, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---In the matter of the Application of Buddy W. Gregory for the Judicial Dissolution of Gregory, Barton & Swapp, P.C., nka GBS Legal Clinic, P.C. Mobile Echocardiography, Inc., Appellant, v. DAT&K, LLC, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20090278-CA F I L E D (June 25, 2009) 2009 UT App 177 ----Fourth District, Provo Department, 050401014 The Honorable Samuel D. McVey Attorneys: James E. Magleby, Salt Lake City, for Appellant Joseph M.R. Covey and Michael T. Hoppe, Salt Lake City; and Roger G. Jones, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee ----- Before Judges Thorne, Bench, and Davis. PER CURIAM: Mobile Echocardiography, Inc. (Mobile) appeals the district court's order entered March 4, 2009. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition for lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of a final order. Generally, "[a]n appeal is improper if it is taken from an order or judgment that is not final." Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 9, 5 P.3d 649. For an order or judgment to be final, it must "dispose of all parties or claims to an action." Id. ¶ 10. The only exceptions to this requirement are where: (1) an appeal is permitted under the circumstances by statute, (2) the appellate court grants interlocutory appeal under rule 5 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, or (3) the trial court certifies the order as final under rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. ¶ 12. Mobile concedes that multiple claims remain pending in the district court, and that those claims involve multiple parties. Furthermore, the March 4, 2009 order has not been certified as final under rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, rule 54(b) requires that this court dismiss the appeal without prejudice. See A.J. Mackay Co. v. Okland Constr. Co., 817 P.2d 323, 325 (Utah 1991). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal from a final order. ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Associate Presiding Judge ______________________________ Russell W. Bench, Judge ______________________________ James Z. Davis, Judge 20090278-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.