WPC TJhű:swOQQ l{.@jL?E\L#A ΟCoSx8Z/<=T/Jr83}xKLߎXvb0O:+(4m*;$ –*T ~qQZL?KBXwW7k/4o6{ѯL&@5`} .qR~Y '24h区lH2Fd< 554a茽nG$uÐa Aukr~sϷ29*E{BH|2hNs:LjG9O$ͫ~=M9Xw%R7pFPDsb#\ % UN# 0q UN 0DG ^ z  w 4  JN mEb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASR 0k 0D ASHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0  ;+L  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptL-(ҡ  RQ$      1    _ԀRule10(CourtofAppeals).MemorandumOpinion.!(b)TheCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudges  participatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhena x formalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbe @ designated MEMORANDUMOPINION,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasons X inasubsequentunrelatedcase.3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U- -(|G2Q$ !.8dd8         0   d(|3$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8CXXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON# #Ԉ ,   MAY1,2001Session X XCX #XXC#JOELOUISGRANTv.SERVICETRANSPORT,INC.XCX   ` @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  h @@No.378214T.D.;TheHonorableRitaL._Stotts_,Judge  X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W200002688_COA_ԄR3CVAugust15,2001 '  AV) ` dE<` A      XXXXCThisappealarisesfromanegligenceclaimfiledbytheAppelleeagainsttheAppellantintheCircuit  CourtofShelbyCounty.TheAppellantfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentor,inthealternative,  todismissforfailuretostateaclaim.ThetrialcourtdeniedtheAppellantsmotion.TheAppellant  filedamotionforpermissiontofileaninterlocutoryappeal.TheAppelleefiledanorderof z voluntarydismissalbeforetheAppellantsmotionforpermissiontofileaninterlocutoryappeal f couldbeheard. R   TheAppellantappeals,arguingthattheorderofvoluntarydismissaldepriveditoftheright *z toseekappellatereviewofthetrialcourtsdenialofitsmotionforsummaryjudgmentor,inthe f alternative,todismissforfailuretostateaclaim.Forthereasonsstatedherein,weaffirmthetrial R courtsdecision. > #XCXXX##XXCj#XCX Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed      #XCG #XCX.AlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,   andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined. !  _Garrett_ԀM._Estep_,Memphis,forAppellant,ServiceTransport,Inc. j#" NoBrieffiledforAppellee J% $   #XXC #XCX#XXC #XCX  XXXXC  )F%) @!MEMORANDUMOPINION   #  1      ׈   @ I.FactsandProceduralHistory     TheAppellee,JoeLouisGrant( Mr.Grant)wasemployedbyR.E.West,Inc.( West). ` Mr.GrantwasinjuredwhileusingatractortrailerleasedbyWesttotheAppellant,Service L  Transport,Inc.( ServiceTransport).Mr.Grantallegedthatthetractortrailerwasnegligently 8  maintainedand/orrepairedwhichcausedhisinjury.OnMarch15,1991,Mr.Grantfiledacomplaint $ t intheCircuitCourtofShelbyCountyagainstServiceTransport,allegingnegligenceunderatheory  ` of_respondeat_Ԁsuperior.OnOctober10,1991,ServiceTransportfiledananswer.OnApril6,1993,  L  ServiceTransportfiledamotiontodismissand/orforsummaryjudgment.OnMay19,1993,Mr.  8  Grantfiledamotionfororderallowingleavetoamendoriginalcomplaint.OnJuly29,1993,Mr. $  Grantfiledasecondmotionfororderallowingleavetoamendoriginalcomplainttoallegeviolations   offederalandstateoccupationalsafetyandhealthacts.OnNovember10,1993,Mr.Grantfiledan   amendedcomplaint.OnJanuary14,1994,thetrialcourtgrantedMr.Grantsmotionsfororder   allowingleavetoamendoriginalcomplaint.     ServiceTransportremovedthecasetotheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheWestern \ DistrictofTennessee.OnMarch11,1994,ServiceTransportfiledananswertotheamended H complaint.OnApril1,1994,Mr.GrantandServiceTransportfiledajointstipulationofdismissal 4 withprejudiceofanyfederalcausesofactionthatMr.Granthadarisingunderanyfederalmotor  p carrierstatutesoranyfederalregulationspromulgatedthereunder.Onthebasisofthejoint  \ stipulationofdismissalwithprejudice,thefederalcourtremandedthecasetotheCircuitCourtof H ShelbyCountyonApril5,1994. 4   OnMay16,1994,ServiceTransportfiledamotionforjudgmentonthepleadingsdismissing   allfederalcausesofactionallegedbyMr.Grantpursuanttothejointstipulation.ServiceTransport  alsofiledamotionforamoredefinitestatementrequestingthatMr.Grantpleadwithspecificitythe  allegedviolationofanyTennesseestatuteorregulation.OnJune3,1994,thetrialcourtgranted  ServiceTransportsmotionforjudgmentonthepleadingsandorderedMr.Granttofileamore l definitestatement.OnJune20,1994,Mr.Grantfiledamoredefinitestatement,citingaviolation X  ofsection503105(1)oftheTennesseeCode.ServiceTransportfileditsanswerandamended D! answertothemoredefinitestatementonAugust25andSeptember7,1995,respectively. 0"    OnJuly24,1995,thetrialcourtdismissedMr.Grants_respondeat_Ԁsuperiorclaims.OnJuly $X" 17,2000,thetrialcourtdismissedMr.Grantsclaimbaseduponsection503105(1)ofthe $D # TennesseeCode.OnJuly19,2000,ServiceTransportfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentor,in %0!$ thealternative,todismissforfailuretostateaclaim,allegingthatallwellpleadedcausesofaction  hadbeendismissedbycourtorderorstipulation.OnAugust25,2000,Mr.Grantfiledathird  motionforleavetoamendthecomplaint.OnSeptember8,2000,bothpartiesmotionswereargued  before,anddeniedby,thetrialcourt.ServiceTransportfiledamotionforpermissiontofilean t interlocutoryappeal.BeforeServiceTransportsmotionforpermissiontofileaninterlocutoryappeal ` couldbeheard,Mr.GrantfiledanorderofvoluntarydismissalpursuanttoRule41.01ofthe L  TennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.Thisappealfollowed. 8    @ II.StandardofReview   `   Thestandardofreviewforanon-jurycaseisdenovoupontherecord.SeeWrightv.City  8  ofKnoxville,898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995).Thereisapresumptionofcorrectnessastothe $  trialcourtsfactualfindings,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.SeeTenn.R.   App.P.13(d).Forissuesoflaw,thestandardofreviewisdenovo,withnopresumptionof   correctness.See_Ridings_Ԁv.RalphM.ParsonsCo.,914S.W.2d79,80(Tenn.1996).   @00 III.LawandAnalysis  p   Thefollowingtwoissues,asweperceivethem,arepresentedforourreview:1)whetherthis H Courthasjurisdictionoverthisappeal;and2)ifthisCourtdoeshavejurisdiction,whetherthetrial 4 courterredbydenyingServiceTransportsmotionforsummaryjudgmentor,inthealternative,to  p dismissforfailuretostateaclaim.Wewillexamineeachoftheseissuesinturn.  \   ServiceTransportarguesthatthisCourtshouldacceptjurisdictionoverthisappealduetothe 4 uniquecircumstancesofthecaseatbar.ServiceTransportclaimsthatitsmotionforsummary   judgmentor,inthealternative,todismissforfailuretostateaclaimwasnotbaseduponthe   applicationofsubstantivelawtothefacts.Rather,ServiceTransportstatesthatitsmotionwasbased  uponanissueoflaw:whetherMr.Grant,afterfilingacomplaint,threemotionstoamend,an  amendedcomplaint,andamoredefinitestatement,statedavalidcauseofactionagainstService  Transport.ServiceTransportarguesthatitcouldnotsimplyrenewitsmotionshouldMr.Grant l recommencethecasebecausethecircumstancesthatoccurredbelowwillbeforeverlost. X     D!   Rule41.01oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurestates,inpertinentpart: 0"     ` SubjecttotheprovisionsofRule23.05orRule66orofanystatute, $X"    ` andexceptwhenamotionforsummaryjudgmentmadebyanadverse $D #    ` partyispending,theplaintiffshallhavetherighttotakeavoluntary %0!$    ` _nonsuit_Ԁtodismissanactionwithoutprejudicebyfilingawritten &"%    ` noticeofdismissalatanytimebeforethetrialofacauseandserving '#&    ` acopyofthenoticeuponallparties. (#'  Tenn.R.Civ.P.41.01. |*%) Aftertheplaintifftakesavoluntary_nonsuit_, [_n]o_Ԁpresentcontroversyexists.Thelawsuitis   concludedandcanonlyberesurrectedifandwhentheplaintiffrecommencestheaction.The  plaintiffsrefilingthesuitisacontingenteventthatmaynotoccur.Martinv._Washmaster_ԀAuto  Center,Inc.,No.01A019305CV00224,1993WL241315,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.July2,1993). t Aplaintiffsrighttotakeavoluntary_nonsuit_Ԁ issubjecttotherestrictionthatitwillnotdeprive ` defendantofarightthatbecamevestedduringthependencyofthecase.Panzerv.King,743 L  S.W.2d612,614(Tenn.1988).WeareunabletofindthatServiceTransporthadarightthatbecame 8  vestedduringthependencyofthecasethatwasdeprivedbyMr.Grantsvoluntary_nonsuit_. $ t Accordingly,wefindthatthisCourtdoesnothavejurisdictionoverthisappeal.  `   BecausewefindthatthisCourtdoesnothavejurisdictionoverthisappeal,wedeclineto  8  decidewhetherthetrialcourterredbydenyingServiceTransportsmotionforsummaryjudgment $  or,inthealternative,todismissforfailuretostateaclaim.   @SS# IV.Conclusion      Fortheforegoingreasons,thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsofthisappealare p taxedagainsttheAppellant,ServiceTransport,Inc.,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#XCXXXf ##XXC8 #XCX \    `     h     ___________________________________ h    `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE