LINCOLN LYNCH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORP., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, GAF CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 the order denying a stay is not appealable as a collateral order or an injunction refusal.
Appellant sought a stay of proceedings under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) due to co-defendants' bankruptcy filings. The district court denied appellant's mot…
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 Automatic Stay (11 U.S.C. § 362) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the court upon consideration of appellee’s motion to dismiss and appellant’s response. The case arises out of asbestos litigation.
On October 28, 1982, appellant’s motion for a stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) was denied by the district court. Previously, an automatic stay had been granted to two of appellant’s co-defendants, Johns-Manville and Unarco, because they had filed Chapter 11 reorganization petitions in two bankruptcy courts. Appellant appealed from the October 28 order that denied it, as a solvent co-defendant, protection under the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).
Appellant contends the order of the district court denying its motion for a stay is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as a “collateral order,” defined in Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Upon consideration this court concludes that the order in the present case is not within the “small class” described in Cohen which may be appealed pursuant to § 1291 even though the usual requirement of finality is not met. We also conclude that the order is not appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as one refusing an injunction. See Jackson Brewing Co. v. Clarke, 303 F. 2d 844 (5th Cir.1962); Jensen-ius v. Texaco, Inc., 639 F. 2d 1342 (5th Cir. 1981); Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Pritchard-Keang Nam Corp., 651 F. 2d 1244 (8th Cir. 1981).
Since this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal, the motion to dismiss must be granted.
The appeal is dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Valva L.J. Evilsizor v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 725 F.2d 97 (10th Cir. 1984)
Authorities Cited
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1949)
- Jackson Brewing Co. v. Clarke, 303 F.2d 844 (5th Cir. 1962)
- Mellon Bank v. Pritchard-Keang NAM Corp., 651 F.2d 1244 (8th Cir. 1981)
- Jensenius v. Texaco, Inc., 639 F.2d 1342 (5th Cir. 1981)