Hardin v. M/V Ben Candies, 76-3666

Decision Date25 March 1977
Docket NumberNo. 76-3666,76-3666
Citation549 F.2d 395
PartiesJerry E. HARDIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M/V BEN CANDIES, Defendant, Otto Candies, Inc. and/or Humble Oil & Refining Company, Defendants-Appellees. Summary Calendar. *
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

John J. Cummings, III, Gregory F. Gambel, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Leonard A. Radlauer, New Orleans, La., for Otto Candies.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before GOLDBERG, CLARK and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this action Jerry E. Hardin seeks damages from Otto Candies, Inc. and Exxon Corporation for damages allegedly resulting from a March 20, 1971 accident on the high seas. Hardin asserts three causes of action, based on the Jones Act, general maritime law, and maintenance and cure.

The district court granted summary judgment against Hardin on the Jones Act claim, relying upon the statute of limitations. Hardin attempts to appeal that decision.

When more than one claim for relief is involved in an action, the resolution of a single claim is not appealable unless the district court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs the entry of judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The district court made no such determination or direction here, and the order disposing of one of the three claims at issue is therefore not appealable. Although the parties have not raised the issue, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Appeal DISMISSED.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Huckeby v. Frozen Food Exp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • July 11, 1977
    ...(3d ed. 1976); 6 J. Moore & J. Wicker, Moore's Federal Practice P 54.28(2), pp. 369 & 373 (2d ed. 1976); see e.g., Hardin v. M/V Ben Candies, 549 F.2d 395 (5th Cir. 1977); Bailey v. McCann, 539 F.2d 501 (5th Cir. 1976), appeal after remand, 550 F.2d 1016 (5th Cir. 1977) (case remanded for c......
  • Directv, Inc. v. Budden
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • September 6, 2005
    ...& REM.CODE § 123.002. 5. See DIRECTV, Inc. v. Budden, No. 4:03-CV-5666 (S.D.Tex. Aug. 11, 2004) (unpublished). 6. Hardin v. M/V Ben Candies, 549 F.2d 395, 396 (5th Cir.1977) ("When more than one claim for relief is involved in an action, the resolution of a single claim is not appealable un......
  • Cason v. Owen, 78-1255
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • August 17, 1978
    ...is not a final decision of a district court. This is a jurisdictional defect that we must ourselves note. Hardin v. M/V Ben Candies, 5 Cir. 1977, 549 F.2d 395, 396; B. B. Adams General Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 5 Cir. 1974, 501 F.2d 176, 2. The decisi......
  • Riddervold, In re, 884
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 27, 1981
    ...would be defeated, in a proceeding such as this, since the first cause of action apparently remains pending, see Hardin v. M/V Ben Candies, 549 F.2d 395 (5 Cir. 1977); Republic of China v. American Express Co., 190 F.2d 334, 338-39 (2 Cir. 1951); Flegenheimer v. Manitoba Sugar Co., Ltd., 18......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT