in state court, the Attorney General appeared on behalf of the Commonwealth on September 26, 2014, when he moved the district court for disbursement of the relators’ share of the settlement proceeds. The propriety of the Commonwealth as a party-litigant in these proceedings is not contested. 8 . We observe that it is questionable whether the district court's April 2015 order was a "final decision! ],” see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, when the relators noted their appeal on April 29, 2015. We are satisfied, however, that any defect in that regard was cured when the court dismissed the claims against the settling defendants on May 29, 2015, as theíé were no other pending claims in the action at that time. See, e.g., Harbert v. Healthcare Servs. Grp., Inc., 391 F.3d 1140, 1146 (10th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Because the first prong of Grable is not
holding an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of another issue is dispositive of the appeal holding an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal holding that an appellate court need not address all remaining issues when disposition of prior issue is dispositive recognizing that an otherwise nonfinal decision becomes final and appealable if the district court adjudicates all remaining claims against all remaining parties before the appellate court acts to dismiss the appeal holding appellate court need not discuss remaining issues when decision on prior issue disposes of appeal