Opinion
Case No. 20100068-CA.
Filed May 13, 2010. Not For Official Publication
Appeal from the Third District, Silver Summit Department, 050500612 The Honorable Bruce C. Lubeck.
George Weinstein, Park City, Appellant Pro Se.
David G. Williams and Terence L. Rooney, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Davis, McHugh, and Voros.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
George Weinstein appeals the district court's order entered on December 28, 2009. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition. We dismiss the appeal.
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. Indeed, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal unless it is taken from a final, appealable order. See id. ¶ 8. For an order to be a final, appealable order, the order must "dispose of all parties or claims to an action." Id. ¶ 10. The only exceptions to the final judgment rule 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.
The record indicates that the district court's December 28, 2009 order is not a final, appealable order because the order does not dispose of all of Weinstein's claims to the action. Specifically, the order indicates that Weinstein's claims pertaining to "tooth #4, and [his] jaw and gum" remain pending before the district court. The parties do not demonstrate that this appeal qualifies for any exception to the final judgment rule. Thus, the December 28, 2009 order is not final for purposes of appeal, and this court is required to dismiss the appeal. See id. ¶ 8.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal from a final order.