Construction Services, LLC, etc. v. RAM-Robertsdale Subdivision Partners, LLC, et al., [Ms. SC-2023-0397, Jan. 12, 2024] ___ So. 3d ____ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Mitchell, J.; Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur; Sellers and Mendheim, JJ., concur in the result) reiterates that “Rule 54(b) certifications should be cabined to exceptional cases because of ‘this Court’s stated policy disfavoring appellate review in a piecemeal fashion.’ Smith v. Slack Alost Dev. Servs. of Alabama, LLC, 32 So. 3d 556, 562-63 (Ala. 2009),” Ms. *6, and accordingly reverses the Baldwin Circuit Court’s order certifying as final its dismissal of counterclaims and third-party claims.
The Court concludes “[t]he claims pending below and those on appeal have significant ‘factual overlap.’ Clarke-Mobile Cntys. Gas Dist. v. Prior Energy Corp., 834 So. 2d 88, 95 (Ala. 2002). The questions before us – whether MCA was properly licensed and whether it can enforce the contract [which was the subject of the dismissed counterclaims and third-party claims] – bear on RAM-Robertsdale’s claims pending below. And deciding those issues now would create an intolerable risk of inconsistent results. For that reason, the circuit court exceeded its discretion by certifying its summary judgment on MCA’s claims against the RAM defendants as final.” Ms. *8.