Transamerican Refining Corp. v. Dravo Corp.

• Decision Date: 06 February 1992
• Docket Number: No. 90-2648,90-2648
• Citation: 952 F.2d 898
• Parties: 1992-1 Trade Cases P 69,718 TRANSAMERICAN REFINING CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DRAVO CORP., et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. BEAR TUBULAR STEEL, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ANG COAL GASIFICATION COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DRAVO CORP., et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. BEAR TUBULAR STEEL, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 898

952 F.2d 898

1992-1 Trade Cases P 69,718

TRANSAMERICAN REFINING CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DRAVO CORP., et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. BEAR TUBULAR STEEL, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

ANG COAL GASIFICATION COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DRAVO CORP., et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. BEAR TUBULAR STEEL, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-2648.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1992.

William K. Wilde, Marc D. Murr, Bracewell & Patterson, Houston, Tex., for Allied-Signal, Inc.

Kenneth L. Salmon, Katarincic & Salmon, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Pullman Power Products Corp.

Fred Knapp, Jr., Andrews & Kurth, Houston, Tex., Marcia Rimai, Whyte & Hirschboeck, S.C., Milwaukee, Wis., for Ladish Co., Inc.

Steven A. Asher, Kohn, Savett, Klein & Graf, Philadelphia, Pa., for Bowline Corp. Roger L. Price, D'Ancona & Pflaum, Chicago, Ill., for MPT Liquidating, Inc.

Jesse R. Pierce, Porter & Clements, Houston, Tex., for Johnson Controls, Inc.

John D. Roady, Hutcheson & Grundy, Houston, Tex., R. Alan Wight, Miller, Nash, Wiener, Hager & Carlsen, Portland, Or., for Dravo Corp. et al. (all appellants).

Ronald S. Liebman, Patton, Boggs & Blow, Washington, D.C., for Crane Co.

Ronald J. Blask, Houston, Tex., for Word Industries Pipe Fabricating, et al.

Larkin C. Eakin, Woodard, Hall & Primm, Houston, Tex., for Bear Tubular Steel.

Grant S. Lewis, Charles C. Platt, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, New York City, for ITT Fluid Products Corp.

James I. Smith, Jr., Butler & Binion, Houston, Tex., for TAD, U.S.A.

E. Lawrence Vincent, William H. White, Susman Godfrey, Houston, Tex., for Dakota Gasification Co., et al. (Transamerican).

Robert D. Daniel, Hirsch & Westheimer, Houston, Tex., Thomas A. Donovan, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Power Piping Co.

Lester L. Hewitt, Houston, Tex., Pravel, Gambrell, Hewitt, Kimball & Krieger, Houston, Tex., for WFI Intern., Inc.

Jeffrey S. Lynch, Cynthia Hollingsworth, Stacy R. Obenhaus, Mark W. Bayer, Gardere & Synne, Dallas, Tex., for Mannesman Pipe & Steel Co., Inc.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge and KAZEN, District Judge. ^*

KAZEN, District Judge:

The suit arises out of an alleged conspiracy to secretly and illegally manipulate the price of specialty steel piping materials sold under cost-plus arrangements throughout the United States between 1966 and 1985. The district court certified this case as a class action. Transamerican Refining Corp. v. Dravo Corp., 130 F.R.D. 70 (S.D.Tex.1990). The named Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, entered into a settlement with several Defendants. Between February 1989 and February 1990, the Appellees ("Plaintiffs" and "Settling Defendants") entered into settlement agreements and received preliminary court approval of those settlements. Plaintiffs moved for final court approval of these settlements in May 1990. Appellants ("Non-settling Defendants") filed a formal objection to that motion, ¹ and the district court held a hearing on the motion. At the hearing, no member of the Settlement Class objected to any of the settlements. Although one class member did initially indicate an interest in objecting, that class member withdrew objections prior to hearing. On June 15, 1990, the district court gave final approval to the settlements. ² The district court found that the Non-settling Defendants had no standing to object to the final approval of the settlements. ³ The Non-settling Defendants now appeal, claiming that the settlements between the Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants caused them a formal legal prejudice by preventing them from obtaining contribution from the Settling Defendants for the Plaintiffs' common-law fraud claims. This Court concludes that the appellants lack standing to pursue this appeal at present and accordingly dismiss the appeal.

The threshold issue presented is whether the Non-settling Defendants have standing to appeal approval of a settlement agreement to which they were not a party. We held in In Re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, 607 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.1979), that non-settling defendants generally have no standing to complain about a settlement, since they are not members of the settling class. We recognized a potential exception to the general rule if the settlement agreement purports to strip non-settling defendants of rights to contribution or indemnity. Id.; see Waller v. Financial Corp. of America, 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir.1987). No such provision is contained in the settlement agreement in this case. Appellants contend that they nevertheless have standing to appeal because many states have now enacted "settlement bar" statutes and therefore, depending upon which state laws are deemed to apply to the pending common-law fraud claims, appellants' contribution rights could be affected.

We question the soundness of that argument, see 2 Newberg on Class Actions § 11.54, following n. 261 (2d Ed. March 1991 cum. supp. 386-87), but need not make that decision now because, as we also held in In Re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, "the district court's order is not final as to the non-settling defendants and is therefore unappealable." 607 F.2d at 173.

Appellants argue that although the district court judgment does not specifically cite Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., we should nevertheless construe it as a "partial final judgment" because of certain language indicating an intention to enter a final judgment. See Kelly v. Lee's Old Fashioned Hamburgers, Inc., 908 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir.1990). Even were we to do so, the fact remains that the appellants are not parties to that judgment. The judgment resolved claims between the Plaintiff class and the Settling Defendants and did not purport to decide any substantive legal rights of the appellants. Indeed the supplemental record produced in this case reflects that the very issue which appellants invoke to reverse the settlement judgment is now pending before the district court. Motions are pending below for dismissal of all contribution claims, bifurcation of Plaintiffs' antitrust and fraud claims, and for separate trial of the appellants' contribution claims. The injury which appellants claim to have...