748 Fed.Appx. 584 (5th Cir. 2018), 16-31233, Williams v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc.

Docket Nº16-31233, 16-31236, 17-30230, 17-30231
Citation748 Fed.Appx. 584
Opinion JudgePER CURIAM:
Party NameTarsia WILLIAMS; Breck Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. TAYLOR-SEIDENBACH, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee Tarsia Williams; Breck Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. McCarty Corporation, Defendant-Appellee Tarsia Williams; Breck Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Boeing Company, Defendant-Appellee Tarsia Williams; Breck Williams, Plaintiffs-...
AttorneyErin Bruce Saucier, Caleb H. Didriksen, III, Esq., Attorney, Didriksen, Saucier, Woods & Pichon, P.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Brandie M. Thibodeaux, Christopher Owen Massenburg, Kevin Ross Sloan, Esq., Glenn Lyle Maximilia Swetman, Manning Gross & Massenburg, L.L.P., New Orl...
Judge PanelBefore DENNIS, CLEMENT, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
Case DateAugust 24, 2018
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Page 584

748 Fed.Appx. 584 (5th Cir. 2018)

Tarsia WILLIAMS; Breck Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

TAYLOR-SEIDENBACH, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee

Tarsia Williams; Breck Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant-Appellee

Tarsia Williams; Breck Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

Boeing Company, Defendant-Appellee

Tarsia Williams; Breck Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

Lockheed Martin Corporation, individually and as successor-in-interest to Martin Marietta, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee

Nos. 16-31233, 16-31236, 17-30230, 17-30231

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

August 24, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Please Refer Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 5th Cir. Rules 28.7 and 47.5.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:09-CV-65

Erin Bruce Saucier, Caleb H. Didriksen, III, Esq., Attorney, Didriksen, Saucier, Woods & Pichon, P.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Brandie M. Thibodeaux, Christopher Owen Massenburg, Kevin Ross Sloan, Esq., Glenn Lyle Maximilia Swetman, Manning Gross & Massenburg, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:[*]

Page 585

We decide whether we have jurisdiction over four consolidated appeals when the district court dismissed remaining defendants without prejudice and did not enter an order pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

I. Facts and Proceedings

Decedent Frank Williams, Jr. ("Williams"), a former employee of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s ("Lockheed Martin") predecessor, Martin Marietta Corporation, allegedly contracted malignant mesothelioma through exposure to asbestos. Williams claimed that such asbestos exposure occurred during the normal course of his employment as a mechanical engineer at the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility ("MAF"), beginning prior to 1974. In November 2008, Williams filed suit in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, asserting multiple liability theories, such as negligence, intentional tort, fraud, strict liability and absolute liability, against several defendants, including Taylor-Seidenbach Incorporated ("TSI"), McCarty Corporation ("McCarty"), Boeing Company ("Boeing"), and Lockheed Martin. Thereafter, Lockheed Martin removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("E.D. La."), alleging that federal subject matter exists under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442.

Subsequently, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the action to the In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 875, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("Asbestos MDL court"). While the matter was pending in the Asbestos MDL court, Williams’s two children, Tarsia Williams and Breck Williams ("the Williamses"), were substituted as plaintiffs following their father’s death. The Asbestos MDL court denied two motions to remand filed by the Williamses, issued various orders relevant to discovery matters, granted motions for summary judgment as to several defendants, and ultimately remanded the entire case (including the remaining claims) back to the E.D. La. for further proceedings.

Following remand to the E.D. La., the Williamses moved to voluntarily dismiss their claims against four remaining defendants. The E.D. La. dismissed the claims against one remaining defendant with prejudice. However, neither the Williamses’ motion nor the E.D. La.’s order of dismissal relevant to the other three defendants stated whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Thereafter, the Williamses filed several notices of appeal with this court relevant to various orders concerning Boeing, TSI, McCarty, and

Page 586

Lockheed Martin.1

Subsequently, the Williamses filed a motion in the E.D. La., seeking a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54. While that motion was pending in the E.D. La., however, Lockheed Martin and Boeing filed motions to dismiss the pending appeals in this court for lack of jurisdiction, which we granted. In granting Lockheed Martin’s motion, this court explained that because one of the orders of dismissal was silent as to whether the dismissal of certain defendants was with or without prejudice, and because the Williamses seemingly conceded that a Rule 54 order was necessary to invoke appellate jurisdiction by filing for such relief with the district court, we did not have jurisdiction over the appeal.

The Williamses then filed a "Motion to Request Final Judgment Under Rule 58(b)(1)(C)" in the E.D. La., despite their pending Rule 54 motion. In support of their Rule 58 motion, they argued that "[j]udgments in favor of all Defendants be certified as final and appealable under the provisions of Rule 58(b)(1)(C)" because "[a]ll claims against all Defendants have been dismissed and there are no defendants left before this court." The E.D. La. granted the Williamses’ Rule 58 motion and dismissed the Rule 54 motion as moot. Additionally, prior to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc., 022621 FED5, 18-31161
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 26 Febrero 2021
    ...Michoud Assembly Facility ("MAF") in New Orleans from around 1974 to 1993. See Williams v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., 748 Fed.Appx. 584, 585 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). The MAF comprises dozens of buildings across several hundred acres. Williams worked pri......
  • Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc., 050420 FED5, 18-31159
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 4 Mayo 2020
    ...for want of a "final decision" under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Williams v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (Williams I), 748 Fed.Appx. 584, 587-88 (5th Cir. 2018). In response, the Williamses sought and obtained partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) as to various defend......
  • 935 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2019), 18-31159, Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 15 Agosto 2019
    ...jurisdiction in this case. We previously recounted the case’s convoluted history, see Williams v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., 748 Fed.Appx. 584 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) ("Williams I "), and here provide only the relevant details. This case arises from a 2......
  • Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc., 081519 FED5, 18-31159
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 15 Agosto 2019
    ...jurisdiction in this case. We previously recounted the case's convoluted history, see Williams v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., 748 Fed.Appx. 584 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) ("Williams I"), and here provide only the relevant details. This case arises from a 20......
4 cases
  • Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc., 022621 FED5, 18-31161
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 26 Febrero 2021
    ...Michoud Assembly Facility ("MAF") in New Orleans from around 1974 to 1993. See Williams v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., 748 Fed.Appx. 584, 585 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). The MAF comprises dozens of buildings across several hundred acres. Williams worked pri......
  • Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc., 050420 FED5, 18-31159
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 4 Mayo 2020
    ...for want of a "final decision" under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Williams v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (Williams I), 748 Fed.Appx. 584, 587-88 (5th Cir. 2018). In response, the Williamses sought and obtained partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) as to various defend......
  • 935 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2019), 18-31159, Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 15 Agosto 2019
    ...jurisdiction in this case. We previously recounted the case’s convoluted history, see Williams v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., 748 Fed.Appx. 584 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) ("Williams I "), and here provide only the relevant details. This case arises from a 2......
  • Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc., 081519 FED5, 18-31159
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 15 Agosto 2019
    ...jurisdiction in this case. We previously recounted the case's convoluted history, see Williams v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., 748 Fed.Appx. 584 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) ("Williams I"), and here provide only the relevant details. This case arises from a 20......

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