Osuna v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc – 2/8/2007
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Reaffirms that Court of Appeals Lacks Jurisdiction where Complaint is Voluntarily Dismissed.
Plaintiff Osuna sued Wal-Mart for various contract and employment-related claims. After amending her complaint to state only claims for unjust enrichment Osuna sought leave to amend her complaint to add other claims. The superior court denied leave to amend. Osuna then moved, pursuant to stipulation with Walmart, to dismiss her unjust enrichment claims. The trial court granted dismissal and entered final judgment for Walmart, from which Osuna appealed.
Division Two, in an opinion by Judge Brammer, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It held that even though final judgment was entered, the dismissal was not, by its terms, a dismissal with prejudice. Therefore no appeal from it can lie. Addressing Osuna’s argument that she abandoned her right to refile the action, thus creating appellate jurisdiction, Division Two held that because the complaint was dismissed by stipulation, neither Osuna nor Walmart are “aggrieved parties” and thus neither has a right to appeal.
The Court also declined to exercise discretionary special action jurisdiction finding the issues presented no basis for it.
Judges Eckerstrom and Espinosa Concurred.