OAK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
HURON CEMENT COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order granting summary judgment was interlocutory and not certified as final under Rule 54(b).
The plaintiff appealed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant cement company in a Robinson-Patman action. A counterclaim for non-paymen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant cement company in a Robinson-Patman action, 15 U.S.C. § 13(a), (d), and (e), to recover treble damages for injuries resulting from unlawful price discrimination.
The record reveals that a counterclaim for non-payment of a contract debt was filed by defendant but has not yet been adjudicated. Since all the claims before the court were not decided in the grant of summary judgment, that order is interlocutory. Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Brunsing, 378 F. 2d 234 (9th Cir. 1967); 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 54.35, at 582 (2d ed. 1948).
Federal courts of appeal do not have jurisdiction of interlocutory orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, David v. District of Columbia, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 92, 187 F. 2d 204 (D.C.Cir.1950), although in an action involving multiple claims or parties the district court may enter a final, appealable judgment with respect to less than all the claims or parties if it certifies that there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs the entry of judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). No such certification or direction was entered in this case. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
This lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured now by a belated Rule 54(b) certification by the District Court. Williams v. Bernhardt Bros. Tugboat Service, Inc., 357 F. 2d 883 (7th Cir. 1966). Our jurisdiction attaches, if at all, when notice of appeal is filed in the district court. See Fed.R.App.P. 3(a). If all the jurisdictional prerequisites have not been satisfied at that point, we have no choice but to dismiss the action and “indicate to the parties that if the trial court enters a new judgment and accompanies it with a Rule 54(b) certificate, the second appeal will be heard on the record and briefs prepared for the first appeal, as supplemented by the new judgment and certificate.” 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1193, at 26 (Wright ed. 1958).
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Coy E. Kirtland v. J. RAY McDERMOTT & Co., 568 F.2d 1166 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
Lewis v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 850 F.2d 641 (10th Cir. 1988)
-
Jago v. United States Dist. Court, 570 F.2d 618 (6th Cir. 1978)
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- David v. Dist. of Columbia, 187 F.2d 204 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
- Williams v. Bernhardt Bros. Tugboat Serv., Inc., 357 F.2d 883 (7th Cir. 1966)
- Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. Brunsing, 378 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1967)