ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
EN BANC

CA02-1248

September 24, 2003

DOUGLAS STOCKS AN APPEAL FROM PULASKI COUNTY

APPELLANT CIRCUIT COURT

v. [CV-2001-856]

AFFILIATED FOODS SOUTHWEST, HONORABLE CHRIS PIAZZA,

INC., JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, CIRCUIT JUDGE

and JOHN DOE III

APPELLEES DISMISSED

Per Curiam

Appellant Douglas Stocks appeals a summary judgment granted to appellee Affiliated Foods Southwest, Inc., that dismissed his claim for personal injuries. The trial court found that the benefits appellant obtained through his workers' compensation coverage constituted his exclusive remedy against appellee. On appeal, appellant raises three points contesting the summary judgment: (1) that summary judgment was improper because a genuine issue of fact was raised; (2) that Ark. Code Ann. § 16-9-105 is unconstitutional; (3) that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel barred appellee from alleging that it was appellant's employer at the time of injury. We conclude that the judgment appealed from is not a final order and, therefore, dismiss.

Appellant was injured while operating a pallet jack that belonged to appellee. As a result of his injury, he filed a workers' compensation claim and received workers' compensation benefits from his employer, Convenience Store Supply, Inc. (CSSI). Appellant then filed a complaint against appellee Affiliated Foods, John Doe I, John Doe II, and John Doe III, alleging that appellee was negligent in supplying a defective pallet jack to appellant. Appellee answered appellant's complaint and moved for dismissal, contending that, inasmuch as it is the sole shareholder of appellant's employer CSSI, appellant's exclusive remedy is his claim for workers' compensation benefits and that he has no cause of action against appellee. The trial court agreed with appellee and granted appellee's motion for summary judgment. The trial court held that, because appellee is the sole stockholder of Shur-Value Stamps, Inc., and Shur-Value Stamps is the sole stockholder of appellant's employer CSSI, appellant's workers' compensation benefits constitute appellant's exclusive remedy with respect to appellee. The summary judgment does not dismiss appellant's suit against the John Doe defendants, and the record does not reflect that the trial court entered any orders disposing of appellant's suit against defendants John Doe I, John Doe II, and John Doe III.

Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that, when more than one claim for relief is presented in an action or when multiple parties are involved, an order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not a final appealable order. See Hambay v. Williams, 335 Ark. 352, 980 S.W.2d263 (1998); South County, Inc. v. First W. Loan Co., 311 Ark. 501, 845 S.W.2d 3 (1993). In Shackelford v. Arkansas Power & Light Company, 334 Ark. 634 , 976 S.W.2d 950 (1998), the supreme court dismissed the appeal of the summary judgment awarded to appellee Arkansas Power and Light because an order of dismissal had not been entered for the appellant's claims against separate defendants John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 and, therefore, appellant's claims against them remained pending. This holding was reiterated by the supreme court in Moses v. Hanna's Candle Co., 352 Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (May 1, 2003).

Rule 54(b) allows a trial court, when it finds no just reason for delaying an appeal, to direct entry of a final judgment as to fewer than all the claims or parties by executing a certification of final judgment as it appears in Rule 54(b)(1); however, absent this required certification, any judgment, order, or other form of decision that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action. See Jackson v. Delis, 76 Ark. App. 436, 67 S.W.3d 596 (2002). No such certification was made in this case.

Rule 2(a)(1) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure-Civil provides that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment or decree entered by the trial court. Whether an order is final for purposes of appeal is a jurisdictional issue that this court is required to raise even if the parties do not. Hambay v. Williams, supra. Because the trial court's order did not dispose of appellant's suit against the John Doe defendants, we dismiss without prejudice.

Dismissed.