TN Court of Appeals

The trial court dismissed Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ appeal. We affirm.

This interlocutory appeal involves comparative fault and amending to add a defendant. The plaintiff suffered slip-and-fall injuries at the defendant airport. The day before the statute of limitations ran, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the airport, alleging negligence. The airport’s answer asserted comparative fault but did not identify an additional tortfeasor. In later discovery, the airport identified its janitorial service. The plaintiff amended her complaint to add the janitorial service as a defendant, citing T.C.A.§ 20-1-119.

After primary residential parent Mother notified Father of her intent to relocate, Father opposed relocation and he petitioned to be named the child’s primary residential parent. The trial court determined the Father had demonstrated a material change in circumstances, but it found the child’s best interests would be promoted by Mother remaining the primary residential parent, and it allowed Mother’s relocation with the child. We affirm in part and we reverse in part.

This appeal is from an order of the trial court entered on August 14, 2012, which order terminated the parental rights of Jeremy A. to his son, Jeremiah P.A., based upon Jeremy A.’s joining in the petition for adoption filed by Donna J. P., the child’s biological maternal grandmother, on September 20, 2011. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-1-117(f). The order appealed from does not resolve all issues raised in the petition for adoption, or the petition to intervene and adopt filed by Charles R., the child’s biological maternal grandfather.

Alberto DeLeon (“the Claimant”) filed a claim pursuant to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act for permanent impairment benefits and moving expense benefits allegedly arising out of an incident that occurred on April 5, 2011, in which the Claimant apparently was shot by his landlord. The claim was assigned to the small claims docket of the Claims Commission. Because we have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order denying a claim appearing on the small claims docket of the Claims Commission, this appeal is dismissed.