Moon Wright & Hous., PLLC v. Cole
253 N.C. App. 113
N.C. Ct. App.2017Background
- Moon Wright & Houston (plaintiff law firm) sued Sandra and Charles Cole for unpaid legal fees alleging breach of contract (Sandra), unjust enrichment/quantum meruit (both), necessities and fraud (Charles), and negligent misrepresentation (both).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; hearing occurred 8 June 2016. On 17 June 2016 the trial court granted summary judgment for Charles only, dismissing plaintiff's claims against him with prejudice.
- Sandra filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy on 25 May 2016, triggering the automatic stay; the trial court did not resolve plaintiff’s claims against Sandra and administratively closed those claims under local rule. Charles did not file bankruptcy.
- Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the summary judgment order as to Charles on 15 July 2016.
- The Court of Appeals raised, sua sponte, whether the appeal was interlocutory because the judgment disposed of only one defendant and the trial court did not enter a Rule 54(b) certification nor did plaintiff argue a substantial-rights exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether order granting summary judgment to Charles is immediately appealable | Appeal from dismissal of claims against Charles should proceed | Order is interlocutory because claims against Sandra remain pending | Dismissed appeal as interlocutory because not final and no Rule 54(b) certification or substantial-rights showing |
| Whether trial court resolved all claims in the case | Plaintiff implied finality as to entire case by appealing | Trial court only addressed Charles; Sandra’s claims remain pending and subject to bankruptcy stay | Court found order did not resolve claims against Sandra; case not final |
| Whether administrative closure under local rule equals final disposition | Plaintiff treated administrative closure as sufficient for appeal | Administrative closure only holds claims in abeyance and does not terminate jurisdiction | Administrative closure is not a final adjudication; appeal premature |
| Whether plaintiff showed substantial right lost without immediate review | Plaintiff made no argument asserting loss of substantial right | Defendants argued no substantial right shown | Court held plaintiff failed to show substantial right; immediate appeal not permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernick v. Jurden, 306 N.C. 435 (1982) (appeal from partial summary judgment is premature unless Order affects a substantial right or Rule 54(b) certification exists)
- Duval v. OM Hospitality, 186 N.C. App. 390 (2007) (final judgment definition and appellate court’s obligation to address interlocutory jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Heavner v. Heavner, 73 N.C. App. 331 (1985) (interlocutory order directs further proceedings and is not final)
- Feltman v. City of Wilson, 238 N.C. App. 246 (2014) (explains avenues for immediate appeal from interlocutory orders: Rule 54(b) certification or showing loss of substantial right)