B. B. Adams General Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, No. 73-2706
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before GEWIN, THORNBERRY and SIMPSON; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 501 F.2d 176 |
| Parties | B. B. ADAMS GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. James A. PATE, Defendant-Appellant, Modern American Mortgage Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 73-2706 |
| Decision Date | 20 September 1974 |
Page 176
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT et al.,
Defendants-Appellants, v. James A. PATE,
Defendant-Appellant, Modern American
Mortgage Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
Page 177
Dale Wootton, Dallas, Tex., for James A. Pate.
Frank D. McCown, U.S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Roger J. Allen, Asst. U.S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., Robert E. Kopp, Barbara L. Herwig, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for HUD.
J. P. Jones, Harry M. Roberts, Dallas, Tex., for Modern Am. Mortgage.
Paul M. Thorp, Dallas, Tex., for B. B. Adams Contr.
Before GEWIN, THORNBERRY and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Adams, a general contracting firm, brought this action on claims arising from its work in constructing the Penzance Hamlet Apartments in Dallas, Texas. Adams named as defendants the owner of the apartments, Col. James A. Pate; the lender, Modern American Mortgage Corporation; and the insurer of the loan, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), together with Manuel Sanchez, HUD's Dallas Area Director. All parties moved for summary judgment. The district court overruled the motions of Pate, HUD and Sanchez, granted the motion filed by Modern American, and granted in part the motion filed by Adams. Pate, HUD and Sanchez appeal. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
The order on the motions for summary judgment did not dispose of Adams' claim against Pate for extra work. Thus it adjudicated fewer than all of the claims of all of the parties, and it is not a final, appealable order under Rule 54(b) in the absence of an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and an express direction for the entry of judgment. The record reveals that Pate moved for certification under Rule 54(b) on the same day he filed notice of appeal. The district court, however, never ruled on the motion nor did it file the required certificate. In its absence we have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, a fact that we are required to notice on our own initiative even though none of the parties argues it. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. General Motors Corp., Inc. v. Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc., 5 Cir. 1974, 498 F.2d 327; Anderson v. Robinson, 5 Cir. 1974, 494 F.2d 45; Foret v. McDermott, 5 Cir. 1973, 484 F.2d 992; 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huckeby v. Frozen Food Exp., No. 75-3633
...(5th Cir. 1977) (case remanded for certification); B. B. Adams General Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 501 F.2d 176 (5th Cir. 1974); General Motors Corp. v. Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc., 498 F.2d 327 (5th Cir. It is undisputed that the district court never c......
-
Cross, Matter of, No. 78-2580
...Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 740, Page 877 96 S.Ct. 1202, 1204, 47 L.Ed.2d 435 (1976); B. B. Adams General Contractors, Inc. v. HUD, 501 F.2d 176, 177 (5th Cir. The unusual posture in which this case came to the court of appeals creates such a question. Cross appeals from the district court......
-
Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., ALLIS-CHALMERS
...without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. See B. B. Adams General Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 501 F.2d 176 (5th Cir. 1974). Since we cannot consider the merits of a non-final order, we turn first to the threshold question of the propriety of the 54......
-
Thompson v. Betts, No. 84-1635
...Cason v. Owen, 578 F.2d 572, 574 (5th Cir.1978); B.B. Adams General Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Housing & Urban Development, 501 F.2d 176, 177 (5th We may, nonetheless, exercise jurisdiction over the district court's order irrespective of the absence of rule 54(b) certification if on......
-
Huckeby v. Frozen Food Exp., 75-3633
...(5th Cir. 1977) (case remanded for certification); B. B. Adams General Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 501 F.2d 176 (5th Cir. 1974); General Motors Corp. v. Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc., 498 F.2d 327 (5th Cir. It is undisputed that the district court never c......
-
Cross, Matter of, 78-2580
...Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 740, Page 877 96 S.Ct. 1202, 1204, 47 L.Ed.2d 435 (1976); B. B. Adams General Contractors, Inc. v. HUD, 501 F.2d 176, 177 (5th Cir. The unusual posture in which this case came to the court of appeals creates such a question. Cross appeals from the district court......
-
Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., ALLIS-CHALMERS
...without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. See B. B. Adams General Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 501 F.2d 176 (5th Cir. 1974). Since we cannot consider the merits of a non-final order, we turn first to the threshold question of the propriety of the 54......
-
Thompson v. Betts, 84-1635
...Cason v. Owen, 578 F.2d 572, 574 (5th Cir.1978); B.B. Adams General Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Housing & Urban Development, 501 F.2d 176, 177 (5th We may, nonetheless, exercise jurisdiction over the district court's order irrespective of the absence of rule 54(b) certification if on......