HORIZON TRADES, INC.
AUBREY GIVENS ET AL.
from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 18C-10 William
B. Acree, Senior Judge
an appeal from an order dismissing the plaintiff's
complaint as to one of two defendants. Because the order
appealed does not dispose of all the plaintiff's claims,
we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed
Kline Preston, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant,
Horizon Trades, Inc.
Richard Glassman, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee,
Aubrey Timothy Givens.
G. Clement, Jr., P.J., M.S., Andy D. Bennett, and Richard H.
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
appeal arises out of a complaint for malicious prosecution
filed by Horizon Trades, Inc., d/b/a Best in Town
("Horizon"). The complaint names two defendants.
One defendant, Shermane Stuart, was never served with
process. The second defendant, Aubrey Givens, filed a Tenn.
R. Civ. P. 12.02 motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. On January 25, 2019, the trial court granted Mr.
Givens's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 motion and dismissed the
action as to Mr. Givens. The order states that Ms. Stuart has
not been served with process, but that if Ms. Stuart were
before the court, the court's ruling "would be the
same as to any action against her." Horizon filed its
notice of appeal on February 15, 2019.
is entitled to an appeal as of right only after the trial
court has entered a final judgment. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). A
final judgment is a judgment that resolves all the claims
between all the parties, "leaving nothing else for the
trial court to do." In re Estate of Henderson,
121 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn. 2003) (quoting State ex rel.
McAllister v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834, 840 (Tenn. Ct. App.
1997)). An order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims
between all the parties is subject to revision at any time
before the entry of a final judgment and is not appealable as
of right. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a); In re Estate of
Henderson, 121 S.W.3d at 645.
January 25, 2019 order dismisses only the claims against Mr.
Givens, not the claims against Ms. Stuart. The trial
court's conditional statement regarding the claims
against Ms. Stuart merely states what the court's ruling
"would be" if Ms. Stuart were before the court. It
does not dispose of the claims against Ms. Stuart, and is
thus not a final judgment under Tenn. R. App. P. 3.
acknowledge that the trial court's order states
"[t]his is a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54 of the
Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure." Under Tenn. R. Civ.
P. 54.02, the trial court may direct the entry of a final
judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims
or parties. However, the trial court may do so "only
upon an express determination that there is no just reason
for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of
judgment." Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. The trial court's
order does not contain the express determination and
direction required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02.
record on appeal was filed on June 6, 2019. After reviewing
the record and determining that the order appealed was not
final, this court ordered the parties either to 1) obtain a
final judgment disposing of the claims against Ms. Stuart, 2)
obtain an order directing the entry of a final judgment under
Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02, or 3) show cause why the appeal
should not be dismissed. Horizon has filed a one sentence
response stating only that "it is proceeding against
Shermane Stuart and that no further final order from the
trial court will be filed." Horizon's response fails
to show good cause why the appeal should not be dismissed.
appeal is hereby dismissed without prejudice to the filing of
a new appeal once a final judgment has been entered. The case
is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings
consistent with this ...