Cited by

DISCUSSION ¶6 As an initial matter, this Court “has a duty to review its jurisdiction and, if jurisdiction is lacking, to dismiss the appeal.”

See, ¶ 7, ( and Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.)

P., “allows a trial court to certify finality to a judgment which disposes of one or more, but not all, of the multiple claims, if the court determines that there is no just reason for delay and directs the entry of judgment.”

3 assertion,3 “[t]his court has the duty to review its jurisdiction and, if jurisdiction is lacking, to dismiss the appeal.” (appellate court may examine its jurisdiction sua sponte).

*414 ¶ 8 “The general rule is that an appeal lies only from a final judgment.” , A.R.S.

“The general rule is that an appeal lies only from a final judgment,” 812 1 The partial judgment also incorporated the court’s October 2007 order dismissing the original complaint; however, that order was not included in the notice of appeal and consequently is not at issue here.

v. Superior Court, -92, - 77 (1981); 5 “whether „the judgment in fact is‟” final is another question of law that we review de novo, Mansoori, 153 P.3d at 1088

Discussion ¶4 Although neither party has raised the issue, we have an independent obligation in every appeal to ensure we have jurisdiction, McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc., and we must dismiss an appeal over which we lack jurisdiction

(“This court has the duty to review its jurisdiction and, if jurisdiction is lacking, to dismiss the appeal.”); , (“Even though the parties do not raise the issue, the appellate court must determine that it has jur

decides and disposes of the cause on its merits, leaving no question open for judicial determination.’” Id., (final judgment disposes of at least one claim in a multiclaim action); (final judgment is “‘an ultimate disposition of an individual claim’”), quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436, 76 S. Ct. 895, 900 (1956).

In fact, “[t]his court has the duty to review its jurisdiction and, if jurisdiction is lacking, to dismiss the appeal.” see also 5 (“Even though the parties do not raise the issue, the appellate court must determine that it has jurisdiction.”).

sed of some but not all of plaintiff’s legal theories); (trial court improperly included Rule 54(b) language in “order relating to consequential damages” that “merely 19 eliminated a potential remedy while not disposing of a single claim”); (order dismissing plaintiff’s strict liability claim not appealable, despite Rule 54(b) language, when negligence claim remained); Sizemore v. Farmers Ins.

In fact, “[t]his court has the duty to review its jurisdiction and, if jurisdiction is lacking, to dismiss the appeal.” , , (“Even though the parties do not raise the issue, the appellate court must determine that it has jurisdiction.”).

(footnote: 3) Certification under Rule 54(b), however, “does not give this court jurisdiction to decide an appeal if the judgment in fact is not final, i.e., did not dispose of at least one separate claim of a multi-claim action.” Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp.

(explaining that strict liability count was not a separate claim from negligence but an alternative theory of recovery); see also Sisemore v. Farmers Ins.