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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , ; FOR REVIEW 1. Whether an exception to the final judgment rule is valid under U.R.A.P. 5 as the June 9th, 2023 and June 138th, 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 837A 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 2 Costs Order On Appeal June 13", 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 dépecage or compel Utah to use California law because §925B allows a unilateral void of Utah as the choice of law. 3