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

• The Plaintiff appealed from a district court order filed during the course of litigation against multiple defendants, including a law firm, two attorneys, a medical professional, and a medical center's administrative director. The appeal relates to a June 12, 2012 order, with no final order on that date regarding any of the parties involved. This case is connected to another appeal involving some of the same defendants (para 1).

Procedural History

• Ct. App. No. 32,743: Final judgment filed on January 8, 2013, related to the attorney defendants (para 1).
• Ct. App. No. 32,548: Notice of appeal filed on November 1, 2012, appealing from a June 12, 2012 order, with no final order on that date concerning any other parties (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Sought to appeal a district court order filed during the litigation process. The Plaintiff did not point out any error in fact or law in the court's calendar notice nor referred to a final order filed within thirty days of her November 1, 2012 appeal (para 1).
• Defendant: Filed a memorandum in opposition and a motion to supplement the record (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a non-final order (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, as the Plaintiff did not appeal from a final judgment within the required timeframe (para 1).

Reasons

• VIGIL, Judge (with RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The Court determined it only has jurisdiction over final, appealable orders. The Plaintiff's appeal did not meet this criterion as it was from a non-final order and no final judgment was filed within 30 days of the notice of appeal. The Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition did not demonstrate any error in fact or law regarding the court's initial assessment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for failing to meet mandatory preconditions for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction (paras 1-1).