PER CURIAM:
Edward M. Garrett appeals the district court's order entered on November 3, 2008. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition for lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of a final order.
Generally, "[a]n appeal is improper if it is taken from an order or judgment that is not final." Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 9, 5 P.3d 649. For an order or judgment to be final, it must "dispose of all parties or claims to an action." Id. ¶ 10. The only exceptions to this requirement are where: (1) an appeal is permitted under the circumstances by statute, (2) the appellate court grants interlocutory appeal under rule 5 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, or (3) the trial court certifies the order as final under rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. ¶ 12.
Garrett asserts that a portion of the November 3, 2008 order should be construed as a final, appealable order. Specifically, Garrett asserts that any order pertaining to his claim for attorney fees is distinct from the ongoing issues in this case. However, Utah courts have rejected the collateral order doctrine. See Merit Elec. Instrumentation v. Utah Dep't of Commerce, 902 P.2d 151, 153 (Utah Ct.App. 1995).
The November 3, 2008 order does not dispose of all parties or claims to the action. Therefore, the order is not a final, appealable order.See Bradbury, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 9. Furthermore, Garrett fails to establish that the order is subject to any exception of the final judgment rule. Thus, until there is a final, appealable order, this court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal. See id. ¶ 8.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal from a final order or an order appropriately certified as final pursuant to rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
Pamela T. Greenwood, Presiding Judge, Gregory K. Orme, Judge, Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge.