AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Century Bank initiated a lawsuit against Artyard Limited Partnership and several other defendants, including Praxis Architects, Inc. The case involved claims related to the mortgaged premises, as well as Praxis' contractual claims. Praxis Architects, Inc. appealed from two district court orders: one granting summary judgment to Century Bank and another awarding attorney fees and costs to Century Bank.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Century Bank: Argued that the district court's orders should be considered final as they resolved all claims between Century and Praxis, suggesting that Praxis' remaining cross-claims could be tried separately.
• Praxis Architects, Inc.: Supported the appeal, arguing against the finality of the district court's orders due to unresolved claims and cross-claims involving other defendants.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's orders awarding summary judgment and attorney fees and costs to Century Bank are final and appealable.

Disposition

• The appeal was summarily dismissed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Michael E. Vigil authoring the opinion and Judges James J. Wechsler and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, concluded that the orders from the district court were not final and appealable. This determination was based on the fact that neither order resolved all of the issues as to any party involved in the case. Specifically, Century Bank's claims against other defendants remained pending, and Praxis' cross-claims against other defendants were also unresolved. The court found that for an order to be considered final and appealable under Rule 1-054(B)(2), it must adjudicate all of the issues as to any party, which was not the case here. Century Bank's argument that the orders were final in relation to the issues between Century and Praxis was rejected because the orders did not resolve every issue as to one or more of the parties. Additionally, the court noted that the district court did not make an express determination that there was no just reason for delay, which could have made the judgment final as to one or more but fewer than all claims under Rule 1-054(B)(1). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of a final, appealable order.