Cited by

Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., ¶ 3 (App. 2014); see Ariz. Const. art. 6 § 9.

Cf. Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., –25, ¶¶ 6, 11 (App. 2014) (in analogous civil context, noting that including Ariz. R. Civ.

Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.- Chandler, L.L.C., ¶ 4 (App. 2014).

P. 54(c); Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., –25 ¶ 11 (App. 2014) (holding that “inclusion of Rule 54(c) language in a judgment that does not resolve all claims by all parties” is improper); see also Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2016) (“[A]n order dismissing without prejudice is not a final judgment because the plaintiff

Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., ¶ 3 (App. 2014).

Law P. 83(c)(1); see also Madrid v. Avalon Care Center-Chandler, L.L.C., ¶ 6 (App. 2014) (Because “not all claims as to all parties have been resolved, the judgment is not a Rule 54(c) judgment.”); ¶ 10 (App. 2012) (Rule 78 is based on Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54, and courts should look to its caselaw for guidance.).

See Madrid v. Avalon Care Center-Chandler, L.L.C., -25 ¶¶ 8-11 (Ariz. 2014).

See Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.- Chandler, L.L.C., ¶ 6 (App. 2014) (holding a judgment containing Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c)—the civil analog to Rule 78(c)—is not final when pending matters remain).

¶11 Our jurisdiction is established by statute and is generally “limited to appeals from final judgments which dispose of all claims and parties.” Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., (); see also A.R.S.

See Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.–Chandler, L.L.C., ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (“[T]his court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from a judgment that does not resolve all claims as to all parties and that does not include Rule 54(b) language.” (citation omitted)).

See Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., ¶ 3 (App. 2014); ¶ 6 (App. 2007).

Madrid v. Avalon Care Center-Chandler, LLC, -25, ¶ 11 (App. 2014) (providing that this court lacks jurisdiction if parties remain in the action despite Rule 54(c) language).

See Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, LLC, ¶ 9 (App. 2014) (noting that the lack of an express Rule 54(b) determination defeats finality).

Thus, “this court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from a judgment that does not resolve all claims as to all parties and that does not include Rule 54(b) language.” Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., ¶ 8 (App. 2014).

Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., ¶ 11 (App. 2014).

Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., , ¶ 3, , 330 (App. 2014).

However, “[t]he inclusion of Rule 54(c) language in a judgment that does not resolve all claims by all parties is not a final judgment.” Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., ¶ 11 (App. 2014).

and is a ‘compromise between the policy against interlocutory appeals and the desirability, in a few cases, of an immediate appeal to prevent an injustice.’” See Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.- Chandler, L.L.C., ¶ 8, (citations omitted) (emphasis added in Madrid).

Chandler, L.L.C., ¶ 8 (App. 2014), we lack jurisdiction if the certification is not "substantively warranted," Southwest Gas Corp. v. Irwin ex rel.

App. P. 3(b); Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., -31 (App. 2014).

App. P. 3; Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., -31 (App. 2014).

P. 54(c); see also Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., -24 ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (requiring Ariz. R. Civ.

P. 54(c); see also Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., , 223-24 ¶ 5, (requiring Ariz. R. Civ.

§ 12–2101(A)(1) (providing that an appeal may be taken from “a final judgment”); Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., ¶ 8, (“[T]his court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from a judgment that does not resolve all claims as to all parties and that does not include Rule 54(b) language.”).