SHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL.
TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-17-1695 Jim
the order appealed is not a final judgment, we must dismiss
this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed
Richard Lee Colbert, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant,
Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association.
L.J. Spence, Jr., Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellees,
Donzaleigh Artis, Pamela Boyce, and Ryan Boyce.
Kenneth Melton Walker, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee,
Shelby County Board of Education.
Steven Stafford, P.J.W.S., Kenny Armstrong, J., and Arnold B.
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that
if multiple parties or multiple claims are involved in an
action, any order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims
or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties
is not final or appealable. Except where otherwise provided,
this Court only has subject matter jurisdiction over final
orders. See Bayberry Assoc. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553
to the mandates of Rule 13(b) of the Tennessee Rules of
Appellate Procedure, we reviewed the appellate record to
determine if the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to
hear this matter. After this review, it appeared to the Court
that it does not have jurisdiction. Specifically, we could
find nothing in the record reflecting that the trial court
adjudicated the claim for a permanent injunction as set forth
in the "Amended Petition for Temporary Restraining
Order, Temporary Injunction and Permanent Injunction."
Although the trial order certified its order as a final
judgment pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of
Civil Procedure, we find that the order was improvidently
certified as final. Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of
Civil Procedure provides:
When more than one claim for relief is present in an action,
whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or third party
claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court,
whether at law or in equity, may direct the entry of a final
judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims
or parties only upon an express determination that there is
no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for
the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination
and direction, any order or other form of decision, however
designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the
rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall
not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties,
and the order or other form of decision is subject to
revision at any time before the entry of the judgment
adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of
all the parties.
Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02.
according to the language of the Rule, certification of an
order as final pursuant to Rule 54.02 is not appropriate
unless it disposes of an entire claim or is dispositive with
respect to a party. Irvin v. Irvin, No.
M2010-01962-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 2436507, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App.
June 15, 2011). Rule 54.02 does not apply to all orders that
are interlocutory in nature, but rather only comes into play
when there are multiple parties, multiple claims, or both.
Duffer v. Lawson, No. M2009-01057-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL
3488620, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2010). Even if a
trial court's order includes the necessary language from
Rule 54.02, a final judgment pursuant to the rule is not
appropriate unless it disposes of a claim or party. This
Court has stated "[a] claim denotes the aggregate of
operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the
courts." Irvin at *8, n. 3 (quoting Chook
v. Jones, No. W2008-02276-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 960319, at
*3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar.17, 2010) (quoting Christus
Gardens, Inc. v. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
Berkowitz, P.C., No. M2007-01104-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL
3833613, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug.15, 2008) (quoting
McIntyre v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 585
F.2d 190, 191 (6th Cir.1978))). Thus, based on the language
of the Rule, certification of an order as final pursuant to
Rule 54.02 is not appropriate unless it disposes of an entire
claim or is dispositive with respect to a party.
Irvin, 2011 WL 2436507, at *8.
by Order entered on March 12, 2018, the Court entered an
Order directing Appellant to, within ten (10) days of the
entry of that Order, obtain entry of a final judgment in the
trial court or else to, within fifteen (15) days from the
entry of that Order, show cause why this appeal should not be
dismissed for failure to appeal an appealable order or
judgment. Our Order of March 12, 2018, also provided that
"[f]ailure to respond to ...