Dunlop v. Ledet's Foodliner of Larose, Inc., No. 74--2076
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before GOLDBERG and RONEY, Circuit Judges, and LYNNE; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 509 F.2d 1387 |
| Parties | 22 Wage & Hour Cas. (BN 202, 76 Lab.Cas. P 33,226 John T. DUNLOP, Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEDET'S FOODLINER OF LAROSE, INC., and Sterling Ledet, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 24 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--2076 |
Page 1387
Labor, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LEDET'S FOODLINER OF LAROSE, INC., and Sterling Ledet,
Defendants-Appellees.
Fifth Circuit.
Page 1388
William J. Kilberg, Sol. of Labor, Carin Ann Clauss, Associate Sol., Jacob I. Karro, Marcia A. Lurensky and Darryl J. Anderson, Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellant.
Sterling Ledet, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before GOLDBERG and RONEY, Circuit Judges, and LYNNE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The instant appeal is taken from a judgment entered in a civil contempt proceeding for violation of an injunction issued under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Therein it was adjudicated that appellee was in civil contempt, that he should make restitution in the amount of $6,570.91, representing wages unlawfully withheld since the service of such injunction, and that he should pay court costs in the sum of $269.08.
In his petition in the court below, appellant joined his claim for compensation 'for the deprivation of the relief granted to him by the' injunction with a claim for reimbursement 'for the costs and expense of instituting and maintaining (the contempt) proceeding.' Thus, two different claims were presented by the petition. See 10 Wright and Miller, Federal Practices and Procedure § 2657 (1973). Appellant assigns as error the denial of his claim for additional costs and expenses. The judgment is silent as to this claim. We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order. 1
Page 1389
Finality is a condition of federal appellate review. It is departed from cautiously; otherwise we would invite piecemeal review. See Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945);28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; F.R.Civ.P. 54.
A judgment or order is final for purposes of appealability when it ends the litigation on the merits and comprehends only execution of the court's decree. Johnson v. Combs, 471 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. den.,413 U.S. 922, 93 S.Ct. 3063, 37 L.Ed.2d 1044, reh. den., 414 U.S. 882, 94 S.Ct. 37, 38 L.Ed.2d 129 (1973). Since by its judgment the court below did not adjudicate the Secretary's claim to recover his enforcement expenses, such judgment lacks the requisite finality to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Diamond, 74-3098
...124, 126, cert. denied, 1973, 412 U.S. 928, 93 S.Ct. 2752, 37 L.Ed.2d 155. Cf. Dunlop v. Ledet's Foodliner of Larose, Inc., 5 Cir. 1975, 509 F.2d 1387; Barfield v. Weinberger, 5 Cir. 1973, 485 F.2d Page 1095 I. Appealability of Order Denying Class Action As a general rule, an order denying ......
-
MATTER OF CF & I STEEL CORP., Civ. A. No. 79-W-1581.
...324 U.S. 229, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911, Kappelmann v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 539 F.2d 165, Dunlop v. Ledet's Foodliner of Larose, Inc., 509 F.2d 1387 (5th Cir. 1975), Donovan v. Hayden Stone, Inc. 434 F.2d 619 (6th Cir. 1970). The rule requiring finality of a judgment or order as a prerequ......
-
Century Laminating, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 77-1541
...539 F.2d 165 (1976), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1061, Page 566 97 S.Ct. 784, 50 L.Ed.2d 776; Dunlop v. Ledet's Foodliner of Larose, Inc., 509 F.2d 1387 (5th Cir. 1975); Donovan v. Hayden, Stone, Inc., 434 F.2d 619 (6th Cir. 1970). The rule requiring finality of a judgment or order as a prerequi......
-
Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, In re, Docket No. 248
...ends the litigation on the merits and comprehends only execution of the court's decree." Dunlop v. Ledet's Foodliner, Inc., 5 Cir. 1975, 509 F.2d 1387, 1389. Moreover, even an order which ends the litigation as to one defendant is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 by another defendant a......