Sullivan County v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.
E2021-00479-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- Appellants (Endo Health Solutions, Inc. and Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) appealed an April 6, 2021 Sullivan County Circuit Court order finding Endo (and its counsel) in contempt and awarding various sanctions including attorney’s fees and costs.
- The trial court awarded certain sanctions but did not quantify several attorney-fee awards and expressly "reserves further sanctions."
- The Court of Appeals issued a show-cause order questioning whether the trial court’s order was a final, appealable judgment under Tenn. R. App. P. 3.
- Appellants argued they sought to appeal the default-judgment-as-to-liability portion and that contempt orders imposing punishment should be immediately appealable; they also sought suspension of finality under Tenn. R. App. P. 2.
- The Court of Appeals held there was no final judgment because attorney’s fees amounts remained undetermined and additional sanctions were reserved, declined to suspend finality, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, taxed costs to appellants, and denied the stay as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality: Is the April 6, 2021 order a final, appealable judgment? | The order fixed punishments (including default liability) and thus is immediately appealable. | The order is not final because attorney’s fees amounts were not fixed and further sanctions were reserved. | Not final; appeal dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Attorney’s fees: Does an unresolved fee amount preclude finality? | Appellants argued some punishments were fixed and fee issues could be reserved or contested later. | Appellees and court: unresolved attorney-fee amounts render the contempt/sanctions order nonfinal. | Unresolved fees defeat finality; order not appealable until amounts are fixed. |
| Reservation of further sanctions: Does reservation of potential additional sanctions prevent finality? | Appellants: courts may later impose additional punishments without making earlier punishment nonfinal. | Appellees and court: reservation of further sanctions contributes to nonfinality here. | Reservation (combined with unquantified fees) supports nonfinality; appeal dismissed. |
| Rule 2 exception: Should the court suspend finality requirement and hear the appeal now? | Appellants requested Rule 2 discretionary suspension, citing expediency and trial calendar. | Appellees: no good cause; finality requirement should be enforced. | Court declined to invoke Rule 2; no good cause to relax finality. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. 2003) (defines a final judgment as one resolving all issues and leaving nothing more for the trial court)
- Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn. 1990) (appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final judgments unless statute or rule provides otherwise)
- Moody v. Hutchinson, 159 S.W.3d 15 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (distinguishes when attorney’s fees are part of contempt punishment versus part of related proceedings)
- State v. Green, 689 S.W.2d 189 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984) (contempt judgment becomes final upon entering punishment)
- Bailey v. Crum, 183 S.W.3d 383 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (addressing tax of court costs in an appeal; distinguishes costs from attorney’s fees)
- Gunn v. Jefferson Cty. Econ. Dev. Oversight Comm., Inc., 578 S.W.3d 462 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) (court costs are collateral and do not affect finality; attorney’s fees do)
- State ex rel. Groesse v. Sumner, 582 S.W.3d 241 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) (show-cause dismissal for lack of finality cured when trial court later entered an order fixing attorney’s fees, after which appeal proceeded)
- Sneed v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of Supreme Ct., 301 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. 2010) (appellate courts will not research or construct arguments for parties; skeletal arguments may be waived)