Happy 40, Inc. v. Miller

ADKINS, Judge. Because less than all the claims presented in this case were finally adjudicated, and because the Circuit Court for Cecil County made no express determination that there was no just reason for delay and gave no express direction for entry of final judgment as to less than all the claims, Md.Rule 605 a compels us to dismiss this appeal. ⁵⁹¹ The factual and procedural background of the case is simple enough. In January 1982, appellee Stephanie Miller was employed as manager of appellant Happy 40, Inc., a liquor store in Cecil County. Appellant Richard Booher was the president of Happy 40.

It seems that Booher was concerned about a problem of internal theft, apparently accomplished by the manipulation of cash register tapes. This concern was communicated to the Elkton Police, who interviewed Miller. When she returned to Happy 40 following the interview, Booher discharged her. Later, Booher told other employees that Miller had been under suspicion in connection with the missing funds.

He conveyed similar information to the Employment Security Administration in connection with Miller’s claim for unemployment compensation. Miller sued Happy 40 and Booher in the Circuit Court for Cecil County. Count I of her declaration claimed damages for wrongful discharge. Count II alleged defamation.

Count III charged Booher with wrongful interference with contractual relations. Count IV charged Booher with intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. It is clear that this declaration presented multiple claims because it stated “more than one claim which [could] be separately enforced.” Diener Enterprises, Inc., v. Miller, 266 Md. 551, 556 , 295 A.2d 470 (1972). As has been said about the provisions of Rule 54(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the language and operation of which are similar to Md.Rule 605 a: A single claimant presents multiple claims for relief . . . when his possible recoveries are more than one in number and not mutually exclusive or, stated another way, when the facts give rise to more than one legal right or cause of action....

Wright, Miller and Kane, 10 Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2657 (1983) [footnotes omitted]. Prior to trial, the circuit court granted appellants’ motion for summary judgment as to Counts I and III. Neverthe ⁵⁹²