No Final Judgment: Akinnagbe v. Opesanmi
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog examines issues in civil litigation cases from Maryland appellate court opinions. In this post the issue is whether an appeal court has jurisdiction to review a trial court decision when the record lacks a final, written judgment resolving all claims against all parties. The case is Akinnagbe v. Opesanmi, No. 288, September Term 2025 (filed October 9, 2026). The Appellate Court of Maryland issued this unreported opinion.
Factual Background on Final Judgment
This case stemmed from a dispute over membership interests in a corporate cannabis processing venture. The plaintiff, joined by three co-plaintiffs, filed a second amended complaint bringing eight separate counts. The claims included fraud in the inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraudulent conveyance, civil conspiracy, an accounting, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief. The lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Howard County named sixteen individual and corporate defendants.
Before trial commenced, the circuit court dismissed several defendants by agreement. Furthermore, the parties submitted stipulations of dismissal for two specific defendants. However, the circuit court never formally signed or entered judicial orders confirming those voluntary dismissals. On the first day of trial, the court dismissed one co-plaintiff after that party failed to appear.
The circuit court split the case into two parts. The jury heard the first five counts, while the court reserved the remaining equitable claims for subsequent bench review. During the multi-day jury trial, defense counsel moved for judgment at the conclusion of the evidence. The trial judge orally granted judgment in favor of the defendants regarding the claims brought by two co-plaintiffs. The judge also disposed of several counts as to most defendants.
Ultimately, the jury evaluated the primary plaintiff’s remaining counts against the lead doctor and returned a verdict in favor of the defense. The trial court then issued a written order on February 18, 2025, attempting to reflect its trial rulings. Later, after disposing of the equitable claims in a separate memorandum opinion, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the defense on the rest of the case. The main plaintiff immediately filed an appeal to challenge the overall trial proceedings.
Parties’ Arguments
On appeal, the primary plaintiff presented thirteen distinct assignments of error. She argued that the trial judge committed multiple procedural and evidentiary mistakes during the trial. Specifically, her brief claimed that the court improperly allowed an alternate juror to participate in deliberations. She also contended that the judge wrongly admitted unauthenticated defense exhibits, including text messages and administrative application documents containing prejudicial materials.
Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that her own former counsel colluded with opposing counsel to introduce a fraudulent operating agreement. She argued that her due process rights were violated when the judge excluded her from sidebar discussions. Her appeal also raised claims regarding false testimony, improper jury instructions on oral agreements, improper ex parte communications, and a failure by the court to rule on her post-trial motions.
In response, the defendants argued that the trial court handled the trial correctly. They maintained that the jury verdict and the court’s equitable rulings were fully supported by the evidence. The defendants requested that the appellate court affirm the circuit court’s final determination in all respects.
Court’s Ruling on Final Judgment
The Appellate Court of Maryland did not reach the merits of any issue raised by the plaintiff. Instead, the appellate court dismissed the appeal on its own motion because no final, appealable judgment existed in the case record.
Under Maryland law, appellate jurisdiction generally requires a complete final judgment that disposes of every claim against every party. The court emphasized that a valid judgment must be set forth on a separate document and entered properly on the docket pursuant to Maryland Rules 2-601 and 2-602.
The appellate panel identified two primary jurisdictional defects in the record:
- Unadjudicated Co-Plaintiff Claims: The circuit court’s written order of February 18 failed to capture its oral rulings. While the judge orally granted motions for judgment against two co-plaintiffs during trial, the written order referred only to a singular plaintiff and omitted any reference to those co-plaintiffs’ claims. The subsequent April order also failed to resolve their claims.
- Unsigned Dismissals: The record contained voluntary stipulations of dismissal for two defendants, but the trial court never signed corresponding court orders. A stipulation of dismissal is not a self-executing court order and does not constitute a final judgment.
Because these claims and parties remained technically unresolved on the official docket, the appellate court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Commentary on Final Judgment
This case offers a procedural lesson for trial lawyers and parties in civil litigation, including medical malpractice actions. Appellate courts strictly enforce jurisdictional rules regarding final judgments. A simple oversight in written documents can derail an appeal after lengthy and costly litigation.
To avoid this frustrating result, legal counsel can take specific, proactive steps throughout the trial process:
- Audit Draft Orders Meticulously: When a trial judge grants oral motions for judgment, lawyers should review the written orders carefully. Counsel should ensure every plaintiff, defendant, and count is explicitly named and resolved in the document. Avoid relying on generic phrases like “all Defendants” when multi-party claims are involved.
- Follow Up on Stipulations: Filing a stipulation of dismissal is often not enough to clear the record. Attorneys should regularly confirm that the clerk enters a formal, signed order of dismissal on the court docket for every departing party.
- Perform a Pre-Appeal Docket Audit: Before filing a notice of appeal, counsel should conduct a complete audit of the docket entries. Verifying that a separate, comprehensive judgment document disposes of every single claim prevents unexpected dismissals at the appeal level.
By using diligence over written orders and docket entries, attorneys can protect their clients’ right to appeal review and avoid costly jurisdictional dismissals.
You can read other Blog posts involving judgment issues, including:
Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.