In Cayer v. Cox Rhode Island Telecom, LLC, No. 2012-23-Appeal, after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of one of the defendants, it granted that defendant’s motion for a Rule 54(b) judgment. Id. at 9. The plaintiff, in turn, plaintiff moved for leave to amend her complaint to include a claim against another party. Id. The trial court denied that motion and the plaintiff appealed. Id.
On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff’s appeal was interlocutory and, therefore, not properly before the Court. In so holding, the Court recognized that generally, interlocutory orders are not subject to review unless (1) “the order or decree falls within one of the exceptions set forth in G.L. 1956 § 9-24-7” or (2) the “order [falls] within the ambit of [the McAuslan Doctrine, a] judicially created rule that permits review of an interlocutory order that has such an element of finality as to require immediate review by [the Supreme Court] to avoid possible injurious consequences.” Id. at 9-10. For purposes of the McAuslan Doctrine, consequences are injurious “when their occurrence is imminent and the damage they will work irreparable.” Id. at 10.
Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court concluded that the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend did not fall within either exception and, accordingly, the Court declined to entertain it. Id.