C.P.C. v. Nosco Plastics, Inc., No. 83-982
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
| Writing for the Court | Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, SMITH and NIES |
| Citation | 719 F.2d 400 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-982 |
| Decision Date | 26 September 1983 |
| Parties | C.P.C. Partnership and Bardot Plastics, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NOSCO PLASTICS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal |
Page 400
v.
NOSCO PLASTICS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Federal Circuit.
Edwards F. Connors, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for plaintiffs-appellants; James M. Slattery, Washington, D.C., of counsel.
Jack L. Fox, Old Westbury, N.Y., was counsel for defendants-appellees.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, SMITH and NIES, Circuit Judges.
Appellants (CPC) filed an appeal from a refusal to disqualify counsel for appellee (Nosco), the asserted ground for disqualification being the anticipation that counsel, an officer of Nosco, would have to testify as a witness. Nosco filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and to assess damages, costs, and attorney fees, on the ground that the
Page 401
appeal is frivolous, citing Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 101 S.Ct. 669, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981), in which the Court held non-appealable an interlocutory order denying a motion to disqualify counsel. On that ground, the appeal is improper and as an appeal must be dismissed.CPC's brief on appeal requests this court to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus, citing circuit opinions permitting that practice. We need not, however, decide here whether the mere relabeling of what would be an appeal is an improper means of evading and circumventing the guidance of the Supreme Court, for the appeal, however labeled, must be dismissed on a ground not raised by the parties.
This circuit has no general authority to issue a writ of mandamus directed to a district court judge sitting in another circuit. See General Electric Co. v. Byrne, 611 F.2d 670 (7th Cir.1979). The Federal Court Improvements Act, Pub.Law 97-164, provided jurisdiction in this court over appeals from district court judgments in certain cases. It provided no supervisory authority over any district court, such as might justify a writ of mandamus under certain circumstances. See In re Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 539 F.2d 357, 365 (4th Cir.1976) and cases there cited.
Nor does the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651, provide a basis for issuance of a writ of mandamus here. That statute authorizes the writ "in aid of [our] jurisdiction." Our jurisdiction to hear the appeal on the merits in this case is not affected by the present denial of a motion to disqualify based on conjecture. Whether a writ of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Innotron Diagnostics, In re, No. 111
...Tools, 720 F.2d 654, 220 U.S.P.Q. 8 (Fed.Cir.1983) (writ issued "to aid the jurisdiction of this court."); C.P.C. v. Nosco Plastics, Inc., 719 F.2d 400, 401 (Fed.Cir.1983) (writ denied to vacate order disqualifying counsel; not "in aid of" jurisdiction; "Th[e Federal Circuit] has no general......
-
United States v. Texas Energy Petroleum Corp., No. 5-97.
...for costs and attorneys' fees of Appellees Texas Energy are denied. Further, under the Cohen doctrine the appeal of the DOE is allowed, 719 F.2d 400 and the orders of the district court staying the subpoena enforcement order and denying certification under Rule 54(b) are reversed, and the c......
-
Atari, Inc. v. JS&A Group, Inc., No. 84-742
...724 F.2d 119 (Fed.Cir.1983); Hilliard v. United States Postal Service, 722 F.2d 1555 (Fed.Cir.1983); C.P.C. v. Nosco Plastics, Inc., 719 F.2d 400 (Fed.Cir.1983); Williams v. Office of Personnel Management, 718 F.2d 1553 (Fed.Cir.1983); Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management, 718 F.2d 391......
-
Petersen Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Central Purchasing, Inc., No. 83-1006
...v. Smith, 338 F.2d 516, 526 (9th Cir.1964)), we have no direct supervisory authority over district courts. C.P.C. v. Nosco Plastics, Inc., 719 F.2d 400 (Fed.Cir.1983). Hence, we cannot act on Petersen's Since we conclude that Petersen failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact and tha......
-
Innotron Diagnostics, In re, No. 111
...Tools, 720 F.2d 654, 220 U.S.P.Q. 8 (Fed.Cir.1983) (writ issued "to aid the jurisdiction of this court."); C.P.C. v. Nosco Plastics, Inc., 719 F.2d 400, 401 (Fed.Cir.1983) (writ denied to vacate order disqualifying counsel; not "in aid of" jurisdiction; "Th[e Federal Circuit] has no general......
-
United States v. Texas Energy Petroleum Corp., No. 5-97.
...for costs and attorneys' fees of Appellees Texas Energy are denied. Further, under the Cohen doctrine the appeal of the DOE is allowed, 719 F.2d 400 and the orders of the district court staying the subpoena enforcement order and denying certification under Rule 54(b) are reversed, and the c......
-
Atari, Inc. v. JS&A Group, Inc., No. 84-742
...724 F.2d 119 (Fed.Cir.1983); Hilliard v. United States Postal Service, 722 F.2d 1555 (Fed.Cir.1983); C.P.C. v. Nosco Plastics, Inc., 719 F.2d 400 (Fed.Cir.1983); Williams v. Office of Personnel Management, 718 F.2d 1553 (Fed.Cir.1983); Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management, 718 F.2d 391......
-
Petersen Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Central Purchasing, Inc., No. 83-1006
...v. Smith, 338 F.2d 516, 526 (9th Cir.1964)), we have no direct supervisory authority over district courts. C.P.C. v. Nosco Plastics, Inc., 719 F.2d 400 (Fed.Cir.1983). Hence, we cannot act on Petersen's Since we conclude that Petersen failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact and tha......