We have no authority to render advisory opinions, and Rule 54(b) was not intended to circumvent that restriction but rather to preserve our long-standing policy against piecemeal appeals. Gessner, 529 N.W.2d at 870; Bjornson v. Guaranty National Insurance Co., 510 N.W.2d 622, 624 (N.D. 1994). [¶ 6] In this case, no party requested Rule 54(b) certification, there was no hearing on the issue, and no party demonstrated extraordinary circumstances or cognizable, unusual hardship.

In its certification the "trial court did not delineate any unusual or compelling circumstances in this case requiring judicial review before all claims are resolved against all parties. The parties did not present any evidence or argument to demonstrate that someone would suffer hardship or prejudice if early review is denied." Bjornson v. Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co., 510 N.W.2d 622, 624 (N.D. 1994). The only perceivable harm would be that, in the event of reversal, a second trial may be necessary.

[¶ 8] Before addressing Robin's argument, we need to decide whether we will exercise jurisdiction to consider this appeal. This Court has often held we cannot render advisory opinions, and we will dismiss appeals if the issues become moot or so academic that no actual controversy is left to be determined. See, e.g. In re Estate of Zimmerman, 1997 ND 58, ¶ 6, 561 N.W.2d 642; Bies v. Obregon, 1997 ND 18, ¶ 9, 558 N.W.2d 855; Ashley Educ. Ass'n v. Ashley Pub. Sch. Dist., 556 N.W.2d 666, 668 (N.D. 1996); Gosbee v. Bendish, 512 N.W.2d 450, 452 (N.D. 1994); Bjornson v. Guar. Nat'l Ins. Co., 510 N.W.2d 622, 624 (N.D. 1994). The prohibition of advisory opinions requires there be an "actual controversy to be determined" before a court can properly adjudicate.

[¶ 9] This court has long held it cannot render advisory opinions. See, e.g., Ashley Education Association v. Ashley Public School District, 556 N.W.2d 666, 668 (N.D. 1996); Braaten v. Deere Co., 547 N.W.2d 751, 752 (N.D. 1996); Bjornson v. Guaranty National Ins. Co., 510 N.W.2d 622, 624 (N.D. 1994); In re Novak's Estate, 73 N.D. 41, 11 N.W.2d 64, 72 (1943). The premise behind the prohibition of advisory opinions is there must be an "actual controversy to be determined" before a court can properly adjudicate.

The burden is upon the party requesting Rule 54(b) certification to show extraordinary circumstances or that cognizable, unusual hardship to the litigants will arise if resolution of the issues on appeal is deferred. Bjornson v. Guaranty National Ins. Co., 510 N.W.2d 622 (N.D. 1994). In determining whether to issue a Rule 54(b) certification, the trial court must consider our longstanding policy against piecemeal appeals.