Ex parte William T. Harrington, [Ms. 1171174, Apr. 5, 2019] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2019). The Court (Bolin, J.; Parker, C.J., and Wise, Bryan, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur; Shaw, Sellers, and Mendheim, JJ., concur in the result) vacates on certiorari review the Court of Civil Appeals’ dismissal of Harrington’s appeal on the basis that it was untimely.
Upon reviewing the record, the Court concludes that, although the appeal was due to be dismissed, it was due to be dismissed as from a non-final judgment rather than on the ground of untimeliness. The Court first concluded that the September 28, 2017, order was not final because although it dismissed with prejudice Harrington’s claims against two defendants, his claims against a third defendant were not adjudicated.... Ms. *6. The subsequent January 26, 2018, order contained nothing “indicating an intent to certify [the earlier] order as a final order in accordance with Rule 54(b).” Ms. *11.
