Naman v. Chiropractic Life Center, Inc., [Ms. 1170934, May 3, 2019] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2019). The Court (Mitchell, J.; Parker, C.J., Shaw, Wise, Sellers, and Stewart, JJ., concur; Bolin, Bryan, and Mendheim, JJ., concur in the result) affirms the Mobile Circuit Court’s summary judgment dismissing a claim for malicious prosecution asserted by Naman against Chiropractic Life Center, Inc. (CLC) and Dr. Agren.
Naman’s Notice of Appeal identified the appellee as “Chiropractic Life Center, Inc., et al.” In accordance with Rule 3(c), Ala. R. App. P., the Court had previously stricken the et al. from the Notice of Appeal and stated that Naman’s appeal “would be docketed ‘only as to those parties specifically identified in the Notice of Appeal’ and that ‘[a]ny person or entity not specifically identified will not be a party to this appeal.’” Ms. *8. The Court effectively granted Dr. Agren’s motion to dismiss Naman’s appeal as to her, holding that “‘it is settled law that notice of appeal from a judgment in favor of two or more parties must specifically name each party whose judgment the appellant wishes to overturn.’” Ms. *9, quoting Sperau v. Ford Motor Co., 674 So. 2d 24, 40 (Ala. 1995).
As to the appeal from the dismissal of CLC, the Court affirmed, concluding “[t]here are undisputed facts in the record ... supporting CLC’s argument that it had a good-faith basis for believing that Naman owed it money.” Ms. *15.