Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of California, No. 8-8
| Court | U.S. Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | BECKER, BONSAL and LACEY, JJ |
| Citation | 619 F.2d 72 |
| Parties | Harold N. EVANSON et al., and United States of America et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellant. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Petitioner, v. The Honorable Earl R. LARSON, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Respondent, and Harold N. Evanson et al., and United States of America et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 07 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | 8-9.,No. 8-8 |
619 F.2d 72
Harold N. EVANSON et al., and United States of America et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellant.
UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Petitioner,
v.
The Honorable Earl R. LARSON, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Respondent, and
Harold N. Evanson et al., and United States of America et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents.
Nos. 8-8, 8-9.
Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals.
Submitted January 24, 1980.
Submitted January 11, 1980.
Decided April 7, 1980.
Joe A. Walters, William E. Flynn, David W. Kelley, O'Connor & Hannan, Minneapolis, Minn., and Richard G. Morgan, Donald S. Arbour, O'Connor & Hannan, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellant in No. 8-8 and for defendant-petitioner in No. 8-9.
Robert J. Hennessey and Jon S. Swierzewski, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minn., Alice Daniel, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Andrew W. Danielson, U. S. Atty., Donald F. Parr, Asst. U. S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., C. Max Vassanelli, William Cole, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Nancy C. Crisman, Thomas H. Kemp, Katherine L. Henry, Margaret A. Weekes, Attys., Dept. of Energy, Washington, D. C., Charles D. Schoor, Stephen P. Deitsch, Attys., Dept. of Energy, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees in No. 8-8 and for plaintiffs-respondents in No. 8-9.
Before BECKER, BONSAL and LACEY, JJ.
No. 8-8 Submitted January 24, 1980.
No. 8-9 Submitted January 11, 1980.
BONSAL, Judge.
Defendant Union Oil Company of California ("Union") appeals from an order of the United States District Court for Minnesota that imposed sanctions on Union pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) on the ground that Union gave false answers to interrogatories served by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have filed motions to dismiss Union's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Alternatively, Union has petitioned for writs of mandamus and prohibition directing that the district court vacate its order and enjoining its enforcement. We grant plaintiffs' motions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dismiss Union's petition for a writ.
I
The order that is the subject of this appeal was issued by the district court during pretrial discovery proceedings. This action was brought under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, 15 U.S.C. §§ 751, et seq., claiming pricing violations by Union. Plaintiffs questioned the truth of Union's answers to certain interrogatories and were accorded a hearing. Following the hearing, the district judge found that one of the interrogatories "was answered falsely and that the earlier answers were undoubtedly evasive." Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of California, 85 F.R.D. 274, 277 (D.Minn. 1979). He found that the following facts would "be deemed to be established":
"1. The defendant Union Oil Company of California knew how it was required to calculate selling prices on its gasoline products under the applicable pricing regulations.
"2. That for all classes of customers defendant Union Oil Company of California did not use as the actual selling prices of its gasoline products the prices required under the applicable regulations.
"3. That the responsible executives of Union Oil Company of California and therefore Union Oil Company of California itself, knew that the actual selling prices of its gasoline products were not the prices required under the applicable regulations." Id. at 278.
The district court directed Union to pay the costs of the non-government plaintiffs incurred by them by reason of the false responses, in the amount of $60,961.09.
II
Union asserts that this court has jurisdiction over its appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 12 U.S.C. § 1904 note. These sections provide that appeals may be taken only from "final" decisions. According to Professor Moore, "most orders requiring or denying discovery do not finally dispose of the proceeding or of any independent offshoot of it, and are, therefore, not appealable." 4 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 26.833, at 26-585. Such non-appealable decisions would include "an order that a particular matter be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appeal of Licht & Semonoff, No. 85-1996
...798 (1985); Eastern Maico Distributors, Inc. v. Maico-Fahrzeugfabrik, 658 F.2d 944, 947 (3d Cir.1981); Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of Calif., 619 F.2d 72, 74 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 832, 101 S.Ct. 102, 66 L.Ed.2d 38 (1980); but see State of Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co.......
-
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., Nos. 85-3423
...collateral to them and is certainly not of the pivotal nature required for certification. Cf. Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of California, 619 F.2d 72, 74 (Em.App.1980); C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil Sec. 2006 at 31 (1970 & Supp.1985) ("Ordinarily it i......
-
Starcher v. Correctional Medical Systems, Inc., No. 96-4250
...filing dilatory discovery motions required examination of relevance to underlying dispute). Cf. Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of California, 619 F.2d 72 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 832, 101 S.Ct. 102, 66 L.Ed.2d 38 (1980) (sanctioned party requested appellate court to vacate dist......
-
Robinson v. Tanner, No. 85-7456
...Johnny Pflocks, Inc. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 634 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir.1980); Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of California, 619 F.2d 72, 74 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 832, 101 S.Ct. 102, 66 L.Ed.2d 38 (1980); In re Attorney General of United States, 596 F.2d 58, 61......
-
Appeal of Licht & Semonoff, No. 85-1996
...798 (1985); Eastern Maico Distributors, Inc. v. Maico-Fahrzeugfabrik, 658 F.2d 944, 947 (3d Cir.1981); Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of Calif., 619 F.2d 72, 74 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 832, 101 S.Ct. 102, 66 L.Ed.2d 38 (1980); but see State of Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 57......
-
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., s. 85-3423
...collateral to them and is certainly not of the pivotal nature required for certification. Cf. Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of California, 619 F.2d 72, 74 (Em.App.1980); C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil Sec. 2006 at 31 (1970 & Supp.1985) ("Ordinarily it is difficult t......
-
Starcher v. Correctional Medical Systems, Inc., No. 96-4250
...filing dilatory discovery motions required examination of relevance to underlying dispute). Cf. Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of California, 619 F.2d 72 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 832, 101 S.Ct. 102, 66 L.Ed.2d 38 (1980) (sanctioned party requested appellate court to vacate dist......
-
Robinson v. Tanner, 85-7456
...Johnny Pflocks, Inc. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 634 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir.1980); Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of California, 619 F.2d 72, 74 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 832, 101 S.Ct. 102, 66 L.Ed.2d 38 (1980); In re Attorney General of United States, 596 F.2d 58, 61-62 ......