In McHazlett v. Otis Eng'g Corp., 133 Ariz. 530, 532, 652 P.2d 1377, 1379 (1982), the Arizona Supreme Court agreed with several federal courts construing Federal Rule 54(b) (upon which Arizona's Rule 54(b) is based) and several state courts construing similar rules in holding that the "better view" is that "unserved 'parties' are not 'parties' within the rules." 133 Ariz. at 532, 652 P.2d at 1379; See also: Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 621-22 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding an order is final for purposes of appeal if it dismisses all served defendants); Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. v. Tullos-Pierremont, 894 F.2d 1469, 1472-76 (5th Cir. 1990) (finding judgment rendered regarding all served defendants is final although unserved parties remain); Insinga v. LaBella, 817 F.2d 1469, 1470 (11th Cir. 1987) (same); Universal Premium Acceptance Corp. v. Pat City Livery, Inc., 34 Kan. App. 2d 37, 115 P.3d 769, 770 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005) (holding a judgment is final when it resolves all claims involving the served parties); Turner v. Kight, 406 Md. 167, 957 A.2d 984, 987 n.3 (Md. 2008) (explaining that a judgment is final if it "disposes of all claims against all persons over whom the court has acquired jurisdiction"); Rae v. All Am. Life and Cas. Co., 95 Nev. 920, 605 P.2d 196, 197 (Nev. 1979) (observing that "it is widely accepted that an individual named as a co-defendant is not a party unless he has been served."); Contra: LCA Leasing Corp. v. Bolivar Prof'l Pharmacy, Inc., 901 S.W.2d 342, 343 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995) (holding a final judgment "must be a disposition of claims against all parties, even those unserved"); York v. Performance Auto, Inc., 2011 UT App 257, 264 P.3d 212, 214-15 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (declining appellate review until an order concludes the litigation regarding all litigants including unserved defendants).