Mathiesen v. Kellogg

- 840 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
315 Nebraska Reports
MATHIESEN v. KELLOGG
Cite as 315 Neb. 840
Christopher Mathiesen, appellant, v. Kristi
Kellogg and Apostle Nursing Home
Health Care, LLC, appellees.
___ N.W.2d ___
Filed February 2, 2024. 	No. S-23-157.
1. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question that does not
involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter
of law.
2. Appeal and Error. Where the assignments of error consist of headings
or subparts of arguments and are not within a designated assignments of
error section, an appellate court may proceed as though the party failed
to file a brief, providing no review at all, or, alternatively, may examine
the proceedings for plain error.
3. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Before reaching the legal issues
presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine
whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it.
4. Jurisdiction: Statutes: Appeal and Error. The requirements of a stat-
ute underlying a right to appeal are mandatory and must be complied
with before the appellate court acquires jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the action.
5. Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. Pursuant to Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 25-1911 (Reissue 2016), for an appellate court to acquire juris-
diction of an appeal, the party must be appealing from a final order or
a judgment; additionally, where implicated, an order must comply with
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315 (Reissue 2016).
6. Actions: Words and Phrases. The term “action” is a comprehensive
one and is applicable to almost any proceeding in a court of justice by
which an individual pursues that remedy which the law affords.
7. Judgments. A judgment must dispose of the case fully and leave noth-
ing for further determination.
8. ____. A judgment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1301 (Cum. Supp. 2018)
is one that disposes of the case either by dismissing it before hearing
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 08:55 AM CDT

- 841 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
315 Nebraska Reports
MATHIESEN v. KELLOGG
Cite as 315 Neb. 840
is had upon the merits, or after trial by rendition of judgment for the
plaintiff or defendant.
9. Judgments: Words and Phrases. Every direction of a court or judge,
made or entered in writing and not included in a judgment, is an order.
10. Actions: Judgments. Where several actions are pending that might
have been brought as a single action, an order of consolidation that is
not expressly limited to a particular purpose merges the cases into one
action for all purposes, the cases thereby losing their individual identity
and becoming a single action in which a single judgment is rendered.
11. Claims: Parties. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1) (Reissue 2016) is impli-
cated only when a case presents more than one claim for relief or
involves multiple parties, and the court enters an order which adjudi-
cates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than
all the parties.
12. Claims: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. When a case involves mul-
tiple claims for relief and the court has entered an order adjudicating
fewer than all the claims, absent a specific statute governing the appeal
providing otherwise, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315 (Reissue 2016) controls
and mandates that the order is not immediately appealable unless the
lower court issues an express direction for the entry of judgment and an
express determination that there is no just reason for delay.
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Timothy
P. Burns, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Christopher Mathiesen, pro se.
Christian T. Williams, of Domina Law Group, P.C., L.L.O.,
for appellee Kristi Kellogg.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
Freudenberg, J.
INTRODUCTION
Christopher Mathiesen, an owner of a limited liability
company, is appealing an order dismissing his complaint
filed under case No. CI 22-7857 (CI 22-7857) against Kristi
Kellogg, who was alleged to be a co-owner of the company.
The court’s order of dismissal occurred after CI 22-7857
was consolidated with case No. CI 20-2255 (CI 20-2255).

- 842 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
315 Nebraska Reports
MATHIESEN v. KELLOGG
Cite as 315 Neb. 840
CI 20-2255 involves several different claims and counter-
claims between the same parties that are based on the same
basic underlying facts. In dismissing CI 22-7857, the court
reasoned that CI 22-7857 had no function but to avoid the pro-
gression order filed in CI 20-2255. The court’s order stated,
“CI 22-7857 is abated and dismissed.” The claims filed under
CI 20-2255 remain pending below for trial. We find that we
lack jurisdiction over Mathiesen’s appeal.
BACKGROUND
CI 20-2255
The litigation between the parties began under CI 20-2255
in the district court for Douglas County. The operative first
amended complaint in CI 20-2255 was filed on July 1, 2020,
by Kellogg against Mathiesen as the defendant and Apostle
Nursing Home Health Care, LLC (Apostle), as a nominal
party. Kellogg set forth that she was bringing the action
as a derivative suit pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 21-165
(Reissue 2022).
The complaint described the formation of Apostle in 2017
for the purpose of providing home nursing care services and
claimed 	that 	Kellogg 	and 	Mathiesen 	are 	each 	50-percent
owner-members. Kellogg stated that from August 2017 to
February 2019, Mathiesen was not a co-owner of Apostle. This
arrangement was so Apostle could be eligible for Medicare and
Medicaid programs despite a conviction on Mathiesen’s record
for criminal assault. Mathiesen regained his 50-percent owner-
ship interest in February 2019.
Kellogg alleged various acts by Mathiesen of fraud, cor-
porate waste, embezzlement, and threatening behavior toward
Apostle employees. Based on these actions, she made claims
for breaches of fiduciary duty under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 21-138
(Reissue 2022), wrongful disassociation under Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 21-145 (Reissue 2022), tortious interference with busi-
ness expectancies, conversion, judicial expulsion pursuant to
§ 21-145, and temporary and permanent injunctions.

- 843 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
315 Nebraska Reports
MATHIESEN v. KELLOGG
Cite as 315 Neb. 840
In October 2020, Mathiesen filed a counterclaim against
Kellogg under CI 20-2255. In the operative amended coun-
terclaim filed in November 2021, Mathiesen alleged he was
the sole owner of Apostle when its articles of incorporation
were filed with the Nebraska Secretary of State. Mathiesen
thereafter entered into discussions with Kellogg to become a
co-owner, whereby, according to Mathiesen, he and Kellogg
agreed that they would “‘start out as 50/50 owners,’” but that
their percentages of ownership would change to correspond
to the money they invested. Mathiesen alleged Kellogg has
never invested any money into Apostle.
When Mathiesen realized a past misdemeanor conviction
would prevent him from registering Apostle with Medicaid,
he and Kellogg agreed his management interest in Apostle
would be transferred to Kellogg for approximately 7 months,
subject to Mathiesen’s continued membership in Apostle and
to his capital investments. They agreed his capital investments
would remain debts of Apostle owed to him. Mathiesen’s
50-percent interest was transferred back to him in February
2019. Mathiesen alleged that he has a capital account with
Apostle in the amount of approximately $17,500.
Mathiesen alleged he terminated Kellogg from employ-
ment 	in 	March 	2020 	for 	making 	unauthorized 	transac-
tions and for misappropriating Apostle funds. According to
Mathiesen, Kellogg’s alleged misappropriations have resulted
in Kellogg’s having equity in the negative amount of approxi-
mately $43,000.
Mathiesen asserted nine causes of action in his counterclaim
against Kellogg.
First, Mathiesen made a claim against Kellogg for breaches
of fiduciary duties. He alleged embezzlement and waste of
company 	funds, 	unnecessary 	and 	fraudulent 	claims 	filed
in the name of Apostle, and fraudulent claims filed against
Mathiesen to state agencies. He also alleged Kellogg’s pre-
venting Mathiesen from exercising his control and authority
over Apostle, failing to bill for services provided, allowing

- 844 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
315 Nebraska Reports
MATHIESEN v. KELLOGG
Cite as 315 Neb. 840
an employee to violate a noncompete agreement, and making
unilateral management decisions.
Second, Mathiesen made a claim against Kellogg for dis-
sociation pursuant to § 21-145, based upon Kellogg’s lack
of capital contributions, the alleged misappropriation, breach
(including by filing the present lawsuit) of the operating agree-
ment that gave Mathiesen exclusive control over all financial
affairs, and other wrongful conduct.
Third, Mathiesen alleged tortious interference and loss of
business opportunity relating to Mathiesen’s attempt to pur-
chase a daycare facility for the children of Apostle’s employees
and clients, preventing the purchase of a second van for trans-
portation services, and filing the underlying lawsuit.
Fourth, Mathiesen alleged conversion based on Kellogg’s
allegedly unauthorized dominion over Apostle’s assets and
waste 	of 	financial 	resources, 	filing 	the 	underlying 	alleg-
edly frivolous lawsuit, using company funds to pay personal
expenses, and making unilateral management decisions.
Fifth, Mathiesen alleged malicious prosecution.
Sixth, Mathiesen sought temporary and permanent injunc-
tions to prevent Kellogg from exercising authority over Apostle,
using Apostle funds, and contacting employees, contractors, or
business relations.
Seventh, Mathiesen alleged that Kellogg breached a 2017
equity 	agreement 	and 	a 	2019 	equity 	and 	asset 	purchase
agreement, including a clause whereby Kellogg would hold
Mathiesen harmless and indemnify him for any claims arising
from actions before February 2019.
Eighth, Mathiesen alleged defamation relating to Kellogg’s
accusations that Mathiesen had abused clients, violated crimi-
nal laws, and committed fraudulent business practices.
Ninth, Mathiesen alleged spoilation from Kellogg’s pur-
ported shredding of documents.
Mathiesen generally asked the court to declare that he is the
100-percent owner of Apostle and to issue a monetary judg-
ment against Kellogg, as well as injunctive relief.

- 845 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
315 Nebraska Reports
MATHIESEN v. KELLOGG
Cite as 315 Neb. 840
CI 22-7857
On October 11, 2022, Mathiesen, acting pro se, filed in
the district court for Douglas County a “Verified Complaint
for Equitable Accounting” against Kellogg, as a defendant,
and Apostle, as a nominal party. The action was filed under a
new case number, CI 22-7857, and assigned to Judge Horacio
J. Wheelock.
With minor variances, the factual allegations of the com-
plaint for equitable accounting are identical to those set forth
in the operative counterclaim in CI 20-2255. Additionally,
the complaint made allegations pertaining to the court’s rul-
ings in CI 20-2255. These included the allegation that the
court had erroneously overruled Mathiesen’s motion for sum-
mary judgment “without requiring [Kellogg] to confront his
evidence and account for her financial misappropriations or
account for her claimed transferable interest.” Also, Mathiesen
described various discovery requests in CI 20-2255 “aimed at
having [Kellogg] account for her claimed transferable interest
in Apostle” and alleged that the court, “without any explana-
tion,” overruled his motion to compel that “would have essen-
tially required [Kellogg] to provide an accounting.” Mathiesen
asserted that, in a meeting with counsel in chambers in rela-
tion to a motion by Mathiesen to expand discovery to compel
Kellogg to provide an accounting for her claimed transferable
interest, the district court told Mathiesen’s counsel that it
would not make Kellogg account for the moneys she misap-
propriated. It stated:
Instead, it is understood that should this matter proceed to
a bench trial, the District Court will force . . . Mathiesen
to prove that his transferable interest is, in fact, a trans-
ferable interest, and that after he calculates [Kellogg’s]
negative equitable balance, she will be ordered to repay
that amount and Apostle will refund any monies contrib-
uted by . . . Mathiesen. After that, it appears, the District
Court will force a sale of Apostle’s assets and divide
them evenly between [Kellogg] and [Mathiesen].

- 846 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
315 Nebraska Reports
MATHIESEN v. KELLOGG
Cite as 315 Neb. 840
Mathiesen complained that Kellogg “has somehow survived
nearly three years pursuing her derivative claims without hav-
ing to account for where her transferable interest comes from.”
Mathiesen asserted that despite making repeated demands
in CI 20-2255 that Kellogg account for her misappropria-
tions of Apostle funds and for her claimed transferable inter-
est, “[s]uch demands have been unavailing and it appears
that the District Court does not believe that . . . Mathiesen
has the right to compel [Kellogg] to account to him in the
CI 20-2255 action.” Because of the district court’s “refus[al]
to act,” Mathiesen “has no choice but to commence a formal
accounting action to ensure that [Kellogg] provides a full and
thorough equitable accounting of the funds that she has taken,
the monies she owes to Apostle, and the deprivation of all
[Mathiesen’s] interests in Apostle.”
As the first cause of action set forth in his complaint in
CI 22-7857, Mathiesen stated he was seeking an account-
ing. As his second cause of action, Mathiesen sought judicial
enforcement of his vote expelling Kellogg as a member of
Apostle. Mathiesen requested consolidation of CI 22-7857 with
the pending CI 20-2255 lawsuit.
Kellogg likewise moved to consolidate CI 22-7857 with
CI 20-2255, requesting the consolidated action be overseen by
Judge Timothy P. Burns, who had been overseeing CI 20-2255
for the previous 2 years. Kellogg requested that the com-
plaint in CI 22-7857 be dismissed under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg.
§ 6-1112(b)(6) and (f) on the grounds that it failed to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted and contained
allegations that were redundant to the allegations contained
in the pleadings in CI 20-2255 or to those allegations that
were the subject of a motion for summary judgment and sum-
marily rejected. Kellogg asserted that Mathiesen’s lawsuit in
CI 22-7857 was an attempt to circumvent the court’s progres-
sion order in CI 20-2255. She requested that the motion to
dismiss be set for hearing after the cases were consolidated.

- 847 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
315 Nebraska Reports
MATHIESEN v. KELLOGG
Cite as 315 Neb. 840
Consolidated Action
On November 3, 2022, Judge Wheelock, in CI 22-7857,
ordered the “clerk shall transfer this matter to Judge . . . Burns
to be consolidated with . . . CI 20-2255.” Judge Wheelock
declined to make any determination on Kellogg’s motion to
dismiss or strike, leaving the motion to be resolved follow-
ing transfer.
Following consolidation, on December 9, 2022, Mathiesen
filed a motion for summary judgment under CI 22-7857,
asserting there was no genuine issue that Kellogg owed
him a fiduciary duty to account for all expenditures of
Apostle funds.
In an order dated February 10, 2023, under a caption list-
ing only CI 22-7857’s case number, Judge Burns granted
Kellogg’s motion to dismiss, stating, “CI 22-7857 is abated
and dismissed.” The court explained that after examining the
pleadings in each matter, it agreed the filing of CI 22-7857
had no function but to avoid the progression order filed in
CI 20-2255, under which the parties were to be prepared for
trial by January 15, 2022. CI 20-2255, said the court, deals
with the same parties and subject matter and offers a com-
plete remedy to the parties. The court did not directly address
Mathiesen’s pending motion for summary judgment.
On March 1, 2023, Mathiesen filed a notice of appeal from
the district court’s “judgment, decree or . . . final order entered
denying [his] Complaint for Equitable Accounting, and from
all adverse rulings and orders entered therein.”
The claims made under CI 20-2255 remain pending for trial.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Mathiesen’s brief lacks an assignments of error section.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] A jurisdictional question that does not involve a factual
dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law. 1
1 Mann v. Mann, 312 Neb. 275, 978 N.W.2d 606 (2022).

- 848 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
315 Nebraska Reports
MATHIESEN v. KELLOGG
Cite as 315 Neb. 840
[2] Where the assignments of error consist of headings or
subparts of arguments and are not within a designated assign-
ments of error section, an appellate court may proceed as
though the party failed to file a brief, providing no review
at all, or, alternatively, may examine the proceedings for
plain error. 2
ANALYSIS
[3,4] Before reaching the legal issues presented for review,
it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it
has jurisdiction over the matter before it. 3 The Nebraska
Constitution expressly provides for “such appellate jurisdic-
tion as may be provided by law.” 4 The requirements of a stat-
ute underlying a right to appeal are mandatory and must be
complied with before the appellate court acquires jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the action. 5
[5] Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1911 (Reissue 2016),
for an appellate court to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, the
party must be appealing from a final order or a judgment. 6
Additionally, where implicated, an order must comply with
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315 (Reissue 2016). 7
[6] Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1301(1) (Cum. Supp. 2018) defines
a judgment as “the final determination of the rights of the
parties in an action.” The term “action” is a comprehensive
one and is applicable to almost any proceeding in a court of
2 Haynes v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 314 Neb. 771, 993 N.W.2d 97
(2023).
3 McPherson v. Walgreens Boot Alliance, 314 Neb. 875, 993 N.W.2d 679
(2023).
4 Neb. Const. art. V, § 2.
5 Swicord v. Police Stds. Adv. Council, 314 Neb. 816, 993 N.W.2d 327
(2023).
6 Paxton v. Paxton, 314 Neb. 197, 989 N.W.2d 420 (2023).
7 Id.

- 849 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
315 Nebraska Reports
MATHIESEN v. KELLOGG
Cite as 315 Neb. 840
justice by which an individual pursues that remedy which the
law affords. 8
[7-9] A judgment must dispose of the case fully and leave
nothing for further determination. 9 A judgment under § 25-1301
is one that disposes of the case either by dismissing it before
a hearing is had upon the merits, or after trial by rendition
of judgment for the plaintiff or defendant. Conversely, every
direction of a court or judge, made or entered in writing and
not included in a judgment, is an order. 10
If CI 22-7857 had not been consolidated with CI 20-2255
at the time of the court’s order of dismissal, the order would
have fully disposed of the action commenced by the filing
of CI 22-7857, since the dismissal of CI 22-7857 implicitly
denied Mathiesen’s motion for summary judgment and fully
disposed of all claims asserted under that case number. But
the court entered its order of dismissal after the court ordered
CI 22-7857 to be consolidated with CI 20-2255, whereby they
became one action.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-703 (Reissue 2016) provides:
Whenever two or more actions are pending in the same
court which might have been joined, the defendant may,
on motion and notice to the adverse party, require him to
show cause why the same shall not be consolidated, and
if no such cause be shown, the said several actions shall
be consolidated.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-704 (Reissue 2016) provides: “The order
for consolidation may be made by the court or by a judge
thereof in vacation.” Under Nebraska’s liberal joinder rules,
a case can involve multiple plaintiffs, multiple defendants,
and multiple claims for relief, including counterclaims, cross-
claims, and third-party claims. 11
8 Champion v. Hall County, 309 Neb. 55, 958 N.W.2d 396 (2021).
9 Paxton v. Paxton, supra note 6.
10 Boyd v. Cook, 298 Neb. 819, 906 N.W.2d 31 (2018).
11 Mann v. Mann, supra note 1.

- 850 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
315 Nebraska Reports
MATHIESEN v. KELLOGG
Cite as 315 Neb. 840
[10] It has been said that there is a marked distinction
between an actual consolidation and an order that the cases
merely be tried together for convenience. 12 “The latter is often
spoken of as a ‘consolidation for trial,’ though it is not a con-
solidation in the strict meaning of that term.” 13 Where several
actions are pending that might have been brought as a single
action, an order of consolidation that is not expressly limited
to a particular purpose merges the cases into one action for
all purposes, the cases thereby losing their individual iden-
tity and becoming a single action in which a single judgment
is rendered. 14
Thus, in Pahl v. Sprague, 15 where two separate actions
were consolidated and resulted in a singular verdict, but the
parties appealed the cases separately with two separate tran-
scripts and separate briefing and argument, we disposed of
the appeals as one case in one opinion. In so doing, we also
reasoned that the court’s order that granted a new trial neces-
sarily did so for the entire consolidated controversy. Thus, the
court lacked the power to subsequently deny a motion for new
trial and dismiss the petition of one of the two consolidated
cases, in the absence of a motion for judgment notwithstand-
ing the verdict. We explained:
[T]his court has heretofore established that when the
cases were properly consolidated for trial they became
one case, after which the parties were in no different
position than they would have been had [the plaintiff]
12 Kennedy v. Emp. St. Und’rs of Watertown, N. Y., 202 S.C. 38, 24 S.E.2d
78 (1943). See, also, e.g., Kight v. American Eagle Fire Ins. Co. of New
York, 125 Fla. 608, 170 So. 664 (1936).
13 Kennedy v. Emp. St. Und’rs of Watertown, N. Y., supra note 12, 202 S.C.
at 40, 24 S.E.2d at 79.
14 See 1A C.J.S. Actions § 245 (2016). See, also, e.g., McCoy v. Scavuzzo,
250 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. 2008); McKinney v. Greenville Ice & Fuel Co.,
232 S.C. 257, 101 S.E.2d 659 (1958); Hull v. Shannon, 139 Misc. 564, 249
N.Y.S. 33 (1931).
15 Pahl v. Sprague, 152 Neb. 681, 42 N.W.2d 367 (1950).

- 851 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
315 Nebraska Reports
MATHIESEN v. KELLOGG
Cite as 315 Neb. 840
filed a petition and defendant a cross-petition in the same
action, wherein one verdict and judgment would dispose
of the entire controversy. 16
Likewise, in Schallenberg v. Kroeger, 17 we held that in
cases that were initially brought separately but were later
consolidated, the court’s order vacating the decree purportedly
only as to one of the cases in fact vacated the decree as to
both. This was because “[w]hen the cases were consolidated
for trial, they became one case.” 18 We explained that once the
cases had been consolidated, “the parties were in no differ-
ent position than they would have been in” had the defendant
“filed a cross-petition . . . instead of commencing a separate
suit asking such relief.” 19
On November 3, 2022, the court in the present matter
did not order that the two cases be merely tried together
or consolidated for some other limited purpose. Rather, the
court broadly ordered that CI 22-7857 be consolidated with
CI 20-2255, stating that the “clerk shall transfer this matter to
Judge . . . Burns to be consolidated with . . . CI 20-2255.” As
a result, CI 22-7857 became a single action with CI 20-2255.
CI 22-7857 and CI 20-2255 lost their individual identities.
Mathiesen relies on the U.S. Supreme Court case of Hall
v. Hall 20 to argue that CI 22-7857 and CI 20-2255 maintained
their separate identities, at least for purposes of appellate
jurisdiction. However, Hall involved the interpretation of
a federal consolidation rule and is inapposite to joinder
under Nebraska law. The Court in Hall interpreted Fed.
R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2) consistently with a long line of fed-
eral case law construing federal consolidation statutes as
16 Id. at 684, 42 N.W.2d at 370.
17 Schallenberg v. Kroeger, 77 Neb. 738, 110 N.W. 664 (1906). See, also,
Reed v. Wellman, 104 Neb. 295, 177 N.W. 171 (1920).
18 Schallenberg v. Kroeger, supra note 17, 77 Neb. at 740, 110 N.W. at 665.
19 Id.
20 Hall v. Hall, 584 U.S. 59, 138 S. Ct. 1118, 200 L. Ed. 2d 399 (2018).

- 852 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
315 Nebraska Reports
MATHIESEN v. KELLOGG
Cite as 315 Neb. 840
accomplishing the joining together of constituent cases for
more efficient case management but “not as completely merg-
ing the constituent cases into one.” 21 Thus, under federal con-
solidation statutes, consolidated cases were to have separate
verdicts, judgments, or decrees. 22 Our consolidation statute is
not modeled after the federal rule, and our jurisprudence on
the subject is fundamentally distinct. As discussed, we have
long held in Nebraska that consolidated cases become “one
case” 23 ending in a singular judgment and shall not be treated
any differently than if the claims had originally been made in
a singular action. We see no reason to depart from this prec-
edent when considering whether we have appellate jurisdic-
tion under § 25-1911.
Because in Nebraska, cases that are consolidated for all
purposes become “one case,” the “action” for purposes of
determining whether there was a “final determination of
the rights of the parties in an action” under § 25-1301(1)
included the pleadings filed under both case numbers. This
means that the court’s order on February 10, 2023, stating
that “CI 22-7857 is abated and dismissed,” dismissed any
causes of action alleged in Mathiesen’s complaint that was
initially filed under CI 22-7857, which causes of action were
not duplicated in his counterclaims originally filed under
CI 20-2255. However, it did not result in a judgment as
defined by § 25-1301(1).
Because the February 10, 2023, order was not a judgment,
for this court to have appellate jurisdiction, the February 10
order must be a final order as defined by Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2022). Additionally, if implicated, it
must comply with § 25-1315.
[11] By its terms, § 25-1315(1) is implicated only when
a case presents more than one claim for relief or involves
21 Id., 584 U.S. at 67.
22 See Hall v. Hall, supra note 20.
23 Schallenberg v. Kroeger, supra note 17, 77 Neb. at 740, 110 N.W. at 665.

- 853 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
315 Nebraska Reports
MATHIESEN v. KELLOGG
Cite as 315 Neb. 840
multiple parties, and the court enters an order which adjudi-
cates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of
fewer than all the parties. 24 Section 25-1315 provides:
(1) When more than one claim for relief is presented
in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-
claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are
involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judg-
ment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims
or parties only upon an express determination that there
is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction
for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such deter-
mination and direction, any order or other form of deci-
sion, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than
all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than
all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of
the claims or parties, and the order or other form of deci-
sion is subject to revision at any time before the entry of
judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and
liabilities of all the parties.
(2) When a court has ordered a final judgment under
the conditions stated in subsection (1) of this section, the
court may stay enforcement of that judgment until the
entry of a subsequent judgment or judgments and may
prescribe such conditions as are necessary to secure the
benefit thereof to the party in whose favor the judgment
is entered.
[12] Before the enactment of § 25-1315, the dismissal
of one of multiple causes of action was a final, appealable
order. 25 Section 25-1315(1), however, was intended to pre-
vent interlocutory appeals, not make them easier, 26 limiting
immediate appealability to circumstances evaluated by the
lower court as presenting no just reason for delay. When a
24 See Mann v. Mann, supra note 1.
25 See Poppert v. Dicke, 275 Neb. 562, 747 N.W.2d 629 (2008).
26 Cerny v. Todco Barricade Co., 273 Neb. 800, 733 N.W.2d 877 (2007).

- 854 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
315 Nebraska Reports
MATHIESEN v. KELLOGG
Cite as 315 Neb. 840
case involves multiple claims for relief and the court has
entered an order adjudicating fewer than all the claims, absent
a specific statute governing the appeal providing otherwise,
§ 25-1315 controls and mandates that the order is not imme-
diately appealable unless the lower court issues an “‘express
direction for the entry of judgment’” and “‘an express deter-
mination that there is no just reason for delay.’” 27 These
requirements apply to any order that adjudicates fewer than
all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the
parties, even if the order otherwise satisfies one of the final
order categories in § 25-1902(1). 28
The consolidated action involving Apostle presents more
than one claim for relief. Claims made by Kellogg on behalf of
Apostle included breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful disassoci-
ation, tortious interference, conversion, and judicial expulsion.
Mathiesen counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty, dis-
sociation, tortious interference, conversion, malicious prosecu-
tion, breach of contract, and defamation. None of these claims
were adjudicated by the February 10, 2023, order Mathiesen
appeals from. The February 10 order dismissed only the claims
made in the complaint filed under CI 22-7857, which were for
an accounting and judicial enforcement of Mathiesen’s vote
expelling Kellogg as a member of Apostle.
The district court did not issue an express direction pursu-
ant to § 25-1315 for the entry of judgment, and it did not
make an express determination there was no just reason to
delay appellate review of its decision abating and dismiss-
ing the complaint filed under CI 22-7857. Even assuming an
order abating and dismissing claims is a final order pursu-
ant to § 25-1902, § 25-1315 does not permit an appeal from
the court’s February 10, 2023, order because the court did
not make the express entry of judgment and determination
27 See TDP Phase One v. The Club at the Yard, 307 Neb. 795, 800, 950
N.W.2d 640, 645-46 (2020).
28 See Mann v. Mann, supra note 1.

- 855 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
315 Nebraska Reports
MATHIESEN v. KELLOGG
Cite as 315 Neb. 840
described by § 25-1315. As a result, we lack appellate juris-
diction over the present appeal.
CONCLUSION
The appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Appeal dismissed.