1. Whether an exception to the final
judgment rule is valid under
U.R.A.P. 5 as the June 9th, 2023
and June 13th, 2023 arose from an
improperly dismissed interlocutory
appeal which the Court of Appeals
dismissed voluntarily?
a. If the Court of Appeals lost
jurisdiction in September
2022, the month Rota sent
the email to dismiss her
appeal after a rule 37A
motion for suggestion of
mootness; then at the time of
the voluntary dismissal, could
the Court of Appeals have
entered the November 1, 2022
Order two months beyond
such a dismissal?
b. The November 1, 2022 Order
mentioned in the June 9th,
2023 Order arose from the
interlocutory appeal and as
the appeal was not properly
dismissed as per URAP Rule
37, then the Court of Appeals
still has jurisdiction under
URAP Rule 5.
2. Whether paragraph 5b in the June
9th Order is estoppped in part as
HMS lost those points on appeal on
January 19th, 2023 (See Separate
Costs Order On Appeal June 13th,
2023 Order).
3. As per §925 California Labor Code
applies to the dispute, California
law governs the dispute as of July
23, 2019, does that make all Orders
in Utah void retroactively?
4. Whether under California Code §904.1, an
appeal from sanctions order directing a
payment over $5,000, is a final appealable
Order and an appeal by right as per Cal. Civ.
Proc. Code §904.1 (A);
5. Whether under URAP 5, the November 1,
2022 items mentioned at 5 b in the June 9th,
2023 Order arose from the interlocutory
appeal which was not properly dismissed as
per URAP Rule 37, which means that the
Court of Appeals still has jurisdiction under
URAP Rule 5.
6. Whether the case should use
depegage or compel Utah to use
California law because §925B allows
a unilateral void of Utah as the
choice of law.

Whether an exception to the final judgment rule is valid under U.R.A.P. 5