IKE BAILEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
J. PATRICK MCCANN, DIRECTOR OF THE PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT, THEODORE J. ZORNOW, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TROTTING ASSOCIATION, 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 order granting summary judgment for only one of multiple defendants was not certified under Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.
The appeal was from an order granting summary judgment in favor of one defendant, but not all defendants. The appendix contained only the order, not t…
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 Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 54(B) Certification cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER:
The appeal is dismissed for lack of the requisite certification required under Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. The entry of the summary judgment in favor of one of the defendants, but not both, is a judgment which requires a certification under Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. Without such a certification, this Court does not have jurisdiction of this appeal. B. B. Adams General Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 501 F. 2d 176 (5th Cir. 1974); General Motors Corp. v. Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc., 498 F. 2d 327 (5th Cir. 1974); Anderson v. Robinson, 494 F. 2d 45 (5th Cir. 1974); Foret v. McDermott, 484 F. 2d 992 (5th Cir. 1973).
Counsel provided us an appendix with only the order granting the motion for summary judgment, not the judgment itself. We note the docket sheet in the following entry refers to an “Order that this case be dismissed with prejudice and without costs but the court reserves the right to reopen the litigation upon motion of a party.” The wording of this entry negates any thought that the court determined the order to be final.
In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.
Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Huckeby v. Frozen Food Express, 555 F.2d 542 (5th Cir. 1977)
-
Aaro, Inc. v. Daewoo Int'l (America) Corp., 755 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir. 1985)
-
Green v. Brantley, 895 F.2d 1387 (11th Cir. 1990)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- B. B. Adams Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev., 501 F.2d 176 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Anderson v. Robinson, 494 F.2d 45 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc., 498 F.2d 327 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Jackson v. Hensley, 484 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Foret v. McDERMOTT, 484 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1973)