Click v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 87-1094
| Decision Date | 24 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1094,87-1094 |
| Citation | 822 F.2d 544 |
| Parties | , 8 Fed.R.Serv.3d 681 Bobby S. CLICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ABILENE NATIONAL BANK (n/k/a MBank Abilene, N.A.), and Oregone West, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
George A. Gonzales, Abilene, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
Allen W. Kimbrough, Diana T. Fulper, Winstead, McGuire, Sechrest & Minick, Dallas, Tex., for Abilene Nat. Bank, etc. and Oregone West, Inc.
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas.
Before POLITZ, WILLIAMS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of sanctions entered against appellant's attorney pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. The district court, after holding a hearing, concluded that appellant's attorney had misrepresented that before filing a motion to amend his original complaint, he had conferred with opposing counsel. After concluding that no such conference had actually taken place, the district court ordered the amended complaint, which it had previously approved for filing, stricken from the record, and it assessed as sanctions appellees' attorneys' fees against appellant's counsel. We have no jurisdiction in this appeal and must DISMISS.
This Court must consider its jurisdiction sua sponte if necessary. See Broadcast Music, Inc. v. M.T.S. Enterprises, 811 F.2d 278, 279 n. 1 (5th Cir.1987); Thompson v. Betts, 754 F.2d 1243, 1245 (5th Cir.1985). Contrary to the parties' representations in their briefs, the order awarding Rule 11 sanctions is not final under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. In striking the appellant's amended complaint, the district court did not dismiss the action in its entirety. The action remains pending before the district court. Had the district court refused, on grounds other than Rule 11, to grant leave to file the amended complaint, no final appealable order would have been entered. DeMelo v. Woolsey Marine Industries, 677 F.2d 1030, 1035 n. 12 (5th Cir.1982); Lockett v. General Finance Loan Co., 623 F.2d 1128, 1129 (5th Cir.1980); Wells v. South Main Bank, 532 F.2d 1005, 1006 (5th Cir.1976) (per curiam). We see no reason to differentiate these cases for purposes of finality simply because the court's order was based upon Rule 11. Thus, the sanctions order did not finally dispose of appellant's case for purposes of appeal.
Likewise, we see no reason to deem this order appealable pursuant to the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Life Insurance Co., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The prerequisites of an appealable Cohen order are that: (1) it must conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) it must resolve an important or serious and unsettled question, (3) which is completely separable from and collateral to the merits of the parties' litigations, and (4) if not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Starcher v. Correctional Medical Systems, Inc., 96-4250
...Summagraphics Corp., 2 F.3d 394 (Fed.Cir.1993); G.J.B. & Assocs. v. Singleton, 913 F.2d 824, 829 (10th Cir.1990); Click v. Abilene Nat'l Bank, 822 F.2d 544, 545 (5th Cir.1987); In re Licht & Semonoff, 796 F.2d 564, 569-70 (1st Cir.1986) ; Eastern Maico Distribs. v. Maico-Fahrzeugfabrik, G.m......
-
Trevino v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (In re Trevino), CASE NO: 10–70594
...as this Court stated in Lopez , these types of limiting sanctions cannot be the death knell for a party's case. Click v. Abilene Nat. Bank , 822 F.2d 544, 545 (5th Cir. 1987) ; In re Lopez , 2015 WL 7572097, at *9 (citing to Smith & Fuller, P.A. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. , 685 F.3d 486, 4......
-
Thomas v. Capital Sec. Services, Inc.
...dispositive order terminating the litigation are not final appealable orders for purposes of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. Click v. Abilene Nat'l Bank, 822 F.2d 544, 545 (5th Cir.1987). However, if a district court imposes monetary sanctions that are made payable prior to the entry of a final appeal......
-
G.J.B. & Associates, Inc. v. Singleton
...Maico Distrib., Inc. v. Maico-Fahrzeugfabrik, 658 F.2d 944, 948-49 (3d Cir.1981) (Rule 37(a)(4) sanctions); Click v. Abilene Nat'l Bank, 822 F.2d 544, 545 (5th Cir.1987) (Rule 11 sanctions). Since Cohen, the Supreme Court has attempted to define when an order is "effectively unreviewable on......