for Publication April 28, 2016.
from Mobile Circuit Court. (CV-13-117). Charles A. Graddick,
Appellant: Carroll J. Ogden, Mobile.
Appellee: Wanda B. Rahman, Asst. City Atty., City of Mobile
Judge. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Thomas, and Donaldson,
February 14, 2013, Samuel L. Jones, the mayor of the City of
Mobile, dismissed Angela Wright from her employment as a
dispatcher for the City of Mobile Police Department. Wright
appealed to the Mobile County Personnel Board, which upheld
Wright's dismissal. Wright then appealed to the Mobile
Circuit Court (" the trial court" ), which, by a
judgment entered on September 20, 2013, reduced Wright's
dismissal to a suspension for 30 days without pay and ordered
that Wright be reinstated to her employment. After the trial
court denied her postjudgment motion, Wright appealed to this
court; this court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
See Wright v. City of Mobile, [Ms. 2130156, Oct. 24,
2014] __ So.3d __, 170 So.3d 656, (Ala.Civ.App. 2014).
the earlier appeal in this court was pending, this court
granted Wright's motion for leave to file a Rule 60(b),
Ala. R. Civ. P., motion in the trial court. See Rule 60(b)
and Jenkins v. Covington, 939 So.2d 31, 34
(Ala.Civ.App. 2006) (holding that appellant must obtain leave
from appellate court in order to file Rule 60(b) motion in
trial court when appeal is pending). On September 30, 2014,
Wright filed a motion in the trial court requesting the trial
court to set aside its judgment based on newly discovered
evidence, see Rule 60(b)(2), because of the alleged
misconduct of an adverse party, see Rule 60(b)(3), because
the judgment was allegedly void, see Rule 60(b)(4), and for
" any other reason justifying relief from the operation
of the judgment," see Rule 60(b)(6). On October 7, 2014,
the trial court denied Wright's motion without expressing
its reasons for doing so. Wright filed a motion to alter,
amend, or vacate the order, which the trial court purported
to deny on November 6, 2014. Wright then appealed to this
court on December 17, 2014.
" Although neither party addresses this court's
jurisdiction over this appeal, we may take notice of a lack
of jurisdiction ex mero motu. See Ruzic v. State ex rel.
Thornton, 866 So.2d 564, 568-69 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003),
abrogated on other grounds by F.G. v. State Dep't of
Human Res., 988 So.2d 555 (Ala.Civ.App. 2007). 'The
timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional
act.' Durr v. Durr, 961 So.2d 139, 140
(Ala.Civ.App. 2006) (citing Gunnison-Mack v. State Pers.
Bd., 923 So.2d 319, 320 (Ala.Civ.App. 2005))."
Adkins v. Adkins, 61 So.3d 1071, 1074 (Ala.Civ.App.
2010). In this case, the trial court denied Wright's Rule
60(b) motion by a final judgment entered on October 7, 2014.
Wright then filed a motion cognizable under Rule 59(e), Ala.
R. Civ. P., requesting that the trial court alter, amend, or
vacate its denial of her Rule 60(b) motion. However,
" '[a]fter a trial court has denied a postjudgment
motion pursuant to Rule 60(b), that court does not have
jurisdiction to entertain a successive postjudgment motion to
" reconsider" or otherwise review its order denying
the Rule 60(b) motion, and such a successive postjudgment
motion does not suspend the running of the time for filing a
notice of appeal.'"
Adkins, 61 So.3d at 1075 (quoting Ex parte
Keith, 771 So.2d 1018, 1022 (Ala. 1998)).
filing of her Rule 59(e) motion did not suspend the time for
filing a notice of appeal from the trial court's denial
of her Rule 60(b) motion, which occurred on October 7, 2014.
Wright did not file her notice of appeal until December 17,
2014, after the expiration of the 42-day appeal period
provided under Rule 4(a)(1), Ala. R. App. P. Because