Chateaugay Corp., In re
| Decision Date | 18 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 246,246 |
| Citation | 928 F.2d 63 |
| Parties | , Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,864 In re CHATEAUGAY CORPORATION, Reomar, Inc., the LTV Corporation, et al., Debtors. LTV STEEL COMPANY, INC., BCNR Mining Corporation, Nemacolin Mines Corporation, and Tuscaloosa Energy Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee, Joseph P. Connors, Sr., Donald E. Pierce, Jr., William Miller, William B. Jordan and Paul R. Dean as trustees of the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Benefit Plan and Trust, Defendants-Appellants. ocket 90-5020. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
William F. Hanrahan, Groom and Nordberg, Washington, D.C., Michael Devorkin, John J. Rieck, Jr., Doar, Devorkin & Rieck, New York City, David W. Allen, General Counsel, United Mine Workers of America, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellants.
Sharon Katz, Karen E. Wagner, Davis Polk & Wardwell and Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before OAKES, Chief Judge, MESKILL, Circuit Judge, and RESTANI, * Judge.
This is a request to reinstate an appeal previously dismissed by this Court for lack of jurisdiction. In re Chateaugay Corp., 922 F.2d 86 (2d Cir.1990). Appellant United Mine Workers of America 1974 Benefit Plan and Trust (Benefit Trust) secured a judgment from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Lifland, J., in response to our opinion and now seeks to reinstate the appeal.
For the reasons that follow, we decline to reinstate the appeal. This denial is without prejudice to reinstatement when our jurisdiction has been invoked properly.
As noted above, we dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In so doing we expressly provided the Benefit Trust with an opportunity to reinstate the appeal. We made it clear that in order for us to have jurisdiction the Benefit Trust had to obtain certification from the bankruptcy court pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, incorporated in its entirety into the Bankruptcy Rules through B.R. 7054(a). The judgment obtained by the Benefit Trust does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 54(b).
The language of Rule 54(b) unambiguously states that absent an express determination of no just reason for delay and an express direction for entry of judgment, the order at issue is not final. Courts, if anything, have interpreted Rule 54(b) even more strictly than the Rule's language requires.
Case law dictates that "a district court cannot merely announce that 'there is no just reason for delay.' " Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. v. LTV Corp. (PBGC), 875 F.2d 1008, 1014 (2d Cir.1989) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)). " 'Rather, its certification must be accompanied by a reasoned, even if brief, explanation of its conclusion.' " Id. (quoting National Bank of Washington v. Dolgov, 853 F.2d 57, 58 (2d Cir.1988) (per curiam) (citation omitted)), rev'd on other grounds, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 2668, 110 L.Ed.2d 579 (1990); see Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 1464, 64 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980). If the 54(b) certificate is defective because it is missing either element of Rule 54(b), we are deprived of jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
In this instance, although the bankruptcy court entered judgment, the certificate does not include a finding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank
... ... See, e.g., Harriscom Svenska AB v. Harris Corp., 947 F.2d 627, 629-30 (2d Cir.1991); Cullen v. Margiotta, 618 F.2d 226, 228 (2d Cir.1980). A fortiori, the entry of a "judgment" unaccompanied even by the statutory formula is not a sufficient basis for our jurisdiction. In re Chateaugay Corp., 928 F.2d 63, 64 (2d Cir.1991) ... In the instant case, the District Court did not expressly determine that there was no just reason for delay in entering judgment. Contrary to the contention of the parties, the explanation given by the District Court for denying ... ...
-
Chateaugay Corp., In re
...413 (1992); In re Chateaugay Corp., 944 F.2d 997 (2d Cir.1991); In re Chateaugay Corp., 930 F.2d 245 (2d Cir.1991); In re Chateaugay Corp., 928 F.2d 63 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1093, 112 S.Ct. 1167, 117 L.Ed.2d 413 (1991); In re Chateaugay Corp., 924 F.2d 480 (2d Cir.1991). For......
-
State of N.Y. v. AMRO Realty Corp.
... ... See also Perez v. Ortiz, 849 F.2d 793, 796-97 (2d Cir.1988)." ... Page 1426 ... Shrader v. Granninger, 870 F.2d 874, 878 (2d Cir.1989) ... As required in this circuit, e.g., In re Chateaugay Corp., 928 F.2d 63 (2d Cir.1991) (per curiam), the district court included a reasoned explanation of its conclusion that there is no just reason for delay. The court reasoned that if its ruling was ... in error as to any or all of the insurance coverage issues, the insureds would have to incur ... ...
-
Elliott v. Archdiocese of N.Y.
... ... Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 2104, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982) ([N]o action of the parties ... of Home Builders v. Norton, 325 F.3d 1165, 1167 (9th Cir.2003); LTV Steel Co. v. United Mine Workers (In re Chateaugay Corp.), 928 F.2d 63, 64 (2d Cir.1991) (per curiam). 7 We also are persuaded, however, that Rule 54(b) does not require that a district court use ... ...