Ex parte Utilities Board of the City of Roanoke, [Ms. 1200307, Sept. 3, 2021] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2021). The Court (Stewart, J.; Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur) issues a writ of mandamus to the Randolph Circuit Court directing the court to vacate its order reinstating a case. The Court first explains “‘[i]f no Rule 59 motion is filed after a judgment is entered, the trial court that entered the judgment generally loses jurisdiction to amend the judgment 30 days after the judgment is entered.’ Ex parte Caremark Rx, LLC, 229 So. 3d 751, 757 (Ala. 2017)(citing Pierce v. American Gen. Fin., Inc., 991 So. 2d 212, 215 (Ala. 2008)); see also George v. Sims, 888 So. 2d 1224, 1227 (Ala. 2004)(‘Generally, a trial court has no jurisdiction to modify or amend a final order more than 30 days after the judgment has been entered, except to correct clerical errors.’)” Ms. *6.
The Court holds, “[u]nder the totality of the circumstances surrounding the entry of the September 9 order, we conclude that the order was a final judgment. The provision of the order granting the Esters 45 days to request reinstatement of the case did not extend the time for the Esters to file a postjudgment motion under Rule 59(e).” Ms. *14.