An order bifurcating or otherwise severing a civil action shall not, by itself, result in any order being treated as an appealable final decision on the merits unless all of the requirements of Rule 46(c)(1) are met.
N.H. R. Super. Ct. 46
Comment
Rule 46(b), consistent with Rule 9(e) and Mosier v. Kinley, 142 N.H. 415, 423-24 (1997), provides that an order denying a timely-filed Motion to Dismiss challenging personal jurisdiction, sufficiency of process and/or sufficiency of service shall be appealable under Supreme Court Rule 7 without the need for the Superior Court to take the actions set forth in Rule 46(c)(1).
Rule 46(c)(1) alters the rule announced in Germain v. Germain, 137 N.H. 83, 85 (1993), that "when a trial court issues an order that does not conclude the proceedings before it, for example, by deciding some but not all issues in the proceedings or by entering judgment with respect to some but not all parties to the action, we consider any appeal from such an order to be interlocutory." Rule 46(c)(1) authorizes the Superior Court to designate certain orders that do not conclude the proceedings before it as final decisions on the merits that can be immediately appealed to the Supreme Court. In Germain, the Supreme Court indicated that under some circumstances, an order bifurcating a case might suffice to convert otherwise interlocutory orders into final decisions on the merits. Rule 46(c)(1), however, explicitly provides that a bifurcation order alone will no longer suffice; rather, the Superior Court must comply with the requirements of Rule 46(c)(1)(A) through (D) if the court intends for an order that finally resolves the case as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties to be treated as a final decision on the merits as to those claims or parties.
Rule 46(c)(2) provides that, prior to accepting the appeal, the Supreme Court may review the Superior Court's findings under Rule 46(c)(1)(C) and (D). If, after providing the parties with the opportunity to file brief memoranda, the Supreme Court concludes that the Superior Court clearly erred in its conclusion that the order should be treated as a final decision on the merits, the Supreme Court shall vacate that part of the order and otherwise dismiss the appeal. The dismissal of the appeal is without prejudice to any party's ability to file an appeal after the entire action is concluded in the Superior Court.