Hebert v. Monsanto Co., Texas City, Tex.

Decision Date18 September 1978
Docket NumberNo. 76-2836,76-2836
Citation580 F.2d 178
Parties18 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 105, 17 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8633 Samuel E. HEBERT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, TEXAS CITY, TEXAS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Henry M. Rosenblum, Robert B. O'Keefe, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Wm. N. Wheat, Houston, Tex., for TX. Metal Trades.

Tom M. Davis, Houston, Tex., for Monsanto Co.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before MORGAN and GEE, Circuit Judges, and KING, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM:

In Hebert v. Monsanto Co., Texas City, Texas, 576 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1978), we entertained an appeal brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) of an interlocutory order denying class action certification. Subsequently, the Supreme Court held that such orders are not appealable. Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., --- U.S. ----, 98 S.Ct. 2451, 57 L.Ed.2d 364 (1978). These cases are substantially similar; both present a plaintiff seeking Inter alia injunctive relief for himself and an alleged class of victims of employment discrimination. In Gardner, the Court held that § 1292(a)(1) does not grant jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from an order denying class certification. "A holding that such an order falls within § 1292(a)(1) would compromise 'the integrity of the congressional policy against piecemeal appeals.' " --- U.S. at ----, 98 S.Ct. at 2454. In light of the Court's ruling, we vacate our opinion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

* District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Hebert v. Monsanto Co., AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • August 9, 1982
    ...(1978). In light of Gardner, the Court of Appeals vacated its opinion in Hebert and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 580 F.2d 178 (5th Cir. 1978). to the affected class. 2 The consent order allowed objecting class members to opt out upon request. Plaintiff Hebert, along with 3......
  • Young v. Pierce, P-80-8-CA.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • July 1, 1982
    ...but rather a broader form of congruity. See Herbert v. Monsanto Company, 576 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1978), vacated on other grounds 580 F.2d 178 (5th Cir. 1978); Leisner v. New York Tel. Co., 358 F.Supp. 359 (S.D.N.Y.1973). The claims of plaintiffs Young, Wyatt and Jackson are typical of the cla......
  • Phillips v. Joint Legislative Committee on Performance and Expenditure Review of State of Miss.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 23, 1981
    ...of an unknown number of additional members. See Hebert v. Monsanto Co., 5 Cir. 1978, 576 F.2d 77, 80, vacated on other grounds, 580 F.2d 178 (5 Cir. 1978). B. Rule 23(c)(1) commands the district court to decide whether to certify a class in any case "as soon as practicable" after commenceme......
  • Griffin v. Dugger
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • August 7, 1987
    ...memorandum of law cited Hebert v. Monsanto Co., 576 F.2d 77, 88 (5th Cir.), vacated and dismissed for want of jurisdiction, 580 F.2d 178 (5th Cir.1978) (per curiam):Appellee contends that because appellant's claim concerns only the trucking activities of the company and other claimants are ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT