Allen v. Okam Holdings, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-30972,96-30972 |
| Citation | 116 F.3d 153 |
| Parties | Ruth ALLEN, wife of/and, H.T. Allen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OKAM HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, Gulfside Marine, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Lawrence V. Arcell, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Tyson Brahm Shofstahl, Adams & Reese, New Orleans, LA, for Gulfside Marine, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before DAVIS, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
This is an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order dismissing a defendant in a personal injury action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because we conclude that we do not have appellate jurisdiction over this matter, we dismiss the appeal.
Appellants Ruth and H.T. Allen were involved in a recreational boating accident while operating their vessel in Louisiana navigable waters. The Allens, who are residents of Mississippi, filed suit in Louisiana state court against the Alabama vendor of the vessel, Gulfside Marine, Inc. (Gulfside), the vessel manufacturer, and a component manufacturer. Gulfside removed the case to federal district court and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). The district court granted the motion.
The Allens seek to appeal the district court's interlocutory order dismissing Gulfside under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3). Interlocutory appeals are generally disfavored, and statutes permitting them must be strictly construed. In re Complaint of Ingram Towing Co., 59 F.3d 513, 515 (5th Cir.1995). Section 1292(a)(3) provides:
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this section, the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from:
....
(3) Interlocutory decrees of such district courts or the judges thereof determining the rights and liabilities of the parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed.
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) (emphasis added). This court has read § 1292(a)(3) as providing for appellate jurisdiction only where the order at issue determines the parties' substantive rights and obligations. Ingram, 59 F.3d at 517. "Orders which do not determine parties' substantive rights or liabilities, however, are not appealable under section 1292(a)(3) even if those orders have important procedural consequences." Id. (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Consequently, we have refused to hear appeals from orders granting a preliminary injunction, Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 640 F.2d 560, 564 (5th Cir.1981), dismissing some, but not all, of the defendants for lack of admiralty jurisdiction, Austracan (U.S.A.), Inc. v. M/V Lemoncore, 500 F.2d 237, 240 (5th Cir.1974), and dismissing a counterclaim, Wallin v. Keegan, 426 F.2d 1313, 1314 (5th Cir.1970).
Most notably, in a case factually similar to the one at hand, this court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order dismissing one of four defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction because the dismissal did not "fall within the limited class of interlocutory appeals authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) relating to the rights and liabilities of parties in admiralty." Seahorse Boat & Barge Corp. v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 617 F.2d 396, 397 (5th Cir.1980). We see no reason to reach a different result here. The district court's dismissal does not affect the merits of appellants' claim. Nor does it preclude appellants from commencing and maintaining an independent action against Gulfside in another forum. Rather, it only affects "how and where the rights and liabilities would be determined." Ingram, 59 F.3d at 517 (citation omitted). Therefore, the order dismissing Gulfside for lack of personal jurisdiction did not determine the parties' substantive rights or liabilities. 1
Because the district court's order is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3), this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Appeal DISMISSED.
1 We do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wingerter v. Chester Quarry Co.
...U.S. 938 (1995). The vast majority of courts construe sec. 1292(a)(3) strictly and narrowly. See, e.g., Allen v. Okam Holdings, Inc., 116 F.3d 153, 154 (5th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (citing In re Ingram Towing Co., 59 F.3d 513, 515 (5th Cir. 1995)); Evergreen Int'l (USA) Corp. v. Standard Wa......
-
La. State Conference of the Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Louisiana, CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-479-JWD-SDJ
...them must be strictly construed." Fannie Mae v. Hurst , 613 F. App'x 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Allen v. Okam Holdings, Inc. , 116 F.3d 153, 154 (5th Cir. 1997) ). An interlocutory appeal should be granted pursuant to 1292(b) only in exceptional cases that meet the statutory criteria......
-
Morton Intern., Inc. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 04-3936.
...although appellate jurisdiction existed because district court granted permission for an interlocutory appeal); Allen v. Okam Holdings, Inc., 116 F.3d 153, 154 (5th Cir.1997) (dismissing appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction when district court dismissed one of two defendants for lack o......
-
Sea Lane Bahamas Limited v. Europa Cruises
...Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has maintained adherence to its strict construction of 1292(a)(3). See, e.g., Allen v. Okam Holdings, Inc., 116 F.3d 153, 154 (5th Cir.1997) ("Interlocutory appeals are generally disfavored, and statutes permitting them must be strictly This circuit also has cons......