INTER. LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOC. v. Fisher

• Decision Date: 26 November 2001
• Docket Number: No. 1D01-1336.,1D01-1336.
• Citation: 800 So.2d 339
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORMEN'S ASSOCIATION; International Longshoremen's Association, Deep Sea Local 1408; Jacksonville Maritime Association; Strachan Shipping Company; Stevens Shipping & Terminal Company; Gulf Terminal International; Cooper T. Smith Stevedoring Company, Inc., and Carolina Stevedoring Company, Appellants, v. Vonceil FISHER and Traveine Howard on their behalf and on behalf, as representatives, of A Class of Similarly Situated Longshore Workers, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

800 So.2d 339

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORMEN'S ASSOCIATION; International Longshoremen's Association, Deep Sea Local 1408; Jacksonville Maritime Association; Strachan Shipping Company; Stevens Shipping & Terminal Company; Gulf Terminal International; Cooper T. Smith Stevedoring Company, Inc., and Carolina Stevedoring Company, Appellants, v. Vonceil FISHER and Traveine Howard on their behalf and on behalf, as representatives, of A Class of Similarly Situated Longshore Workers, Appellees.

No. 1D01-1336.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

November 26, 2001.

Daniel Shaughnessy & Robert P. Eshelman, II, of Robert P. Eshelman, II, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Stephen B. Gallagher & Edward L. Birk, of Marks Gray, P.A., Jacksonville; David E. Breskin, Stephen P. Connor, & Anne-Marie E. Sargent, of Short, Cressman & Burgess, PLLC, Seattle, WA; and Michael F. Coppins, of Cooper, Coppins & Monroe, Tallahassee, for Appellees.

BROWNING, J.

International Longshoremen's Association, Deep Sea Local 1408 (Appellant), one of the defendants in the trial court, appeals a non-final order granting the plaintiffs'/appellees' motion to certify a settlement class. We have jurisdiction of such orders pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) (providing for immediate appeal of order determining a class should be certified). However, Appellees contend that Appellant, a nonsettling defendant, lacks standing as a matter of law to appeal the order certifying the settlement class. See, e.g., Zupnick v. Fogel, 989 F.2d 93, 98 (2d Cir.1993)

("Usually, a nonsettling defendant lacks standing to object to a court order approving a partial settlement because a nonsettling defendant is ordinarily not affected by such a settlement."); Agretti v. ANR Freight Syst., Inc., 982 F.2d 242 (7th Cir.1992); Waller v. Financial Corp. of America, 828 F.2d 579 (9th Cir.1987); Quad/Graphics, Inc. v. Fass, 724 F.2d 1230 (7th Cir.1983); In re Viatron Computer Systs. Corp. Litigation, 614 F.2d 11 (1st Cir.1980).¹ This appeal is dismissed because Appellant lacks standing. Credit Indust. Co., Ltd. v. Remark Chem. Co., Inc., 67 So.2d 540 (Fla.1953); Consolidated City of Jacksonville v. Buffkin, 768 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction and lack of standing); Stas v. Posada, 760 So.2d 954, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (on mot. to dismiss) (dismissing appellants from appeal because they lacked ownership interest in property awarded to plaintiff by trial court and, consequently, were "not affected by the judgment entered below"); Page v. Randall, 750 So.2d 76 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Appellant has the burden to demonstrate it has standing. In re School Asbestos Litigation, 921 F.2d 1330 (3d Cir. 1991). While acknowledging the general rule that a nonsettling defendant lacks standing to challenge a certification of a settlement class of other defendants, Appellant argues the instant facts bring it within the recognized exception to the general principle, which permits a nonsettling defendant to object "where it can demonstrate that it will sustain some formal legal prejudice as a result of the settlement." Waller, 828 F.2d at 583; Agretti, 982 F.2d at 246-47; In re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, 607 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.1979). Appellant has not met its burden to show it will suffer plain legal prejudice or otherwise be irreparably damaged if it is not permitted to proceed with this appeal. Agretti, 982 F.2d at 242. Because Appellant lacks standing and this threshold issue is dispositive of the appeal, we need not reach the merits of Appellant's arguments as to whether the settlement class was properly certified under Rule 1.220(a) & (b).

Accordingly,...