CMB Holdings Group, etc. v. City of Tuscaloosa, et al., [Ms. SC-2024-0084, Sep. 27, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Mitchell, J.; Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Mendheim, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur; Bryan and Sellers, JJ., concur in the result) concludes the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court exceeded its discretion in certifying its judgment as final under Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. and dismisses CMB Holdings Group d/b/a Twelve25 Sports Bar and Entertainment Venue’s (“CMB”) appeal.
CMB challenged a Tuscaloosa ordinance providing that “an establishment whose alcohol license is issued as a restaurant be assigned an occupancy limit corresponding to its configuration as a restaurant (‘with applicable furnishings arranged for dining’) rather than as a bar or some other entertainment venue (‘when furnishings are removed or reconfigured’).” Twelve25, located on the strip in Tuscaloosa, enjoyed a dual occupancy limit before the ordinance was passed – with a maximum occupancy of 287 when configured as a restaurant and 519 when configured as a bar. Ms. *4.
CMB filed suit asserting numerous claims broadly alleging “it was the victim of a racially discriminatory conspiracy designed to ‘target[] [its] minority[1]owned business.’” Ms. **4-5. The circuit court dismissed all of CMB’s claims “except for counts 1, 16, 17 – which, according to the trial court, ‘together state a valid claim against the City only, under the Alabama Constitution’s Contracts Clause, solely for declaratory and injunctive relief.’” Ms. *7. The court certified its dismissal order as final.
Again expressing its disfavor of piecemeal appellate review, the Court holds “[t]he extensive overlap between CMB’s adjudicated and unadjudicated claims makes clear that this case is not one of the ‘exceptional cases’ for which piecemeal appellate review is appropriate. The judgment the trial court certified was therefore not an appealable final judgment, and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.” Ms. **13-14.