Jasmin v. Dumas
| Citation | 726 F.2d 242 |
| Decision Date | 08 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-3446,83-3446 |
| Parties | Godfrey JASMIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walton J. DUMAS, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Continental Casualty Company, Defendant-Appellant. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Godfrey JASMIN and Henry M. Jasmin, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, Raymon G. Jones, Nancy J. Marshall, New Orleans, La., for Continental Cas. Co.
Porteous, Toledano, Hainkel & Johnson, C. Gordon Johnson, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Dumas.
Sessions, Fishman, Rosenson, Boisfontaine & Nathan, Robert E. Winn, Shirley A. Nassif, New Orleans, La., for Godfrey Jasmin.
Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, John C. Combe, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Henry Jasmin, Stanley Pulitzer, Inc. & Lumbermens.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before RUBIN, GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
The issue is whether we should entertain an appeal from a judgment dismissing some of the parties to a multi-defendant suit, certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) by the district court, when the district court subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, seeks to set the judgment aside. Finding no reason to insist upon appellate review of a judgment that would have been interlocutory and non-appealable save for the district court's certificate, we dismiss the appeal.
Godfrey Jasmin sued six defendants for personal injuries sustained when he was injured in an automobile collision. Jasmin alleged that he was a guest passenger in a vehicle owned by Genway Corporation, leased to Stanley Pulitzer or Stanley Pulitzer, Inc., and operated by Henry Jasmin. That vehicle was involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by Walton J. Dumas. He alleged that both Henry Jasmin and Dumas were negligent, and sued Travelers Insurance Company as the Pulitizers' insurer. Thereafter Godfrey Jasmin amended his complaint to sue Continental Casualty Company and Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company as the Pulitzers' insurers. Continental Casualty filed a separate action seeking a declaratory judgment that a commercial umbrella liability policy issued by it is not an automobile liability insurance policy and was therefore not required to include uninsured motorist coverage by La.R.S. 22:1406(D). It also filed cross-claims in the original action. The two cases were consolidated. Thereafter Lumbermen's Casualty Company settled Godfrey Jasmin's claim against some of its insureds. Even if it had coverage, Continental was an excess insurer and the settlement was for less than the coverage provided by Lumbermen's primary policy. Continental, therefore, filed a motion to amend its previously filed cross-claim against Lumbermen's, requesting declaratory and injunctive relief because of the alleged breach of Lumbermen's fiduciary and contractual duties to Continental and to the one Lumbermen's insured who was not dismissed from the lawsuit. Continental also opposed the settlement agreement and brought a motion to avoid it as being opposed to public policy.
Godfrey Jasmin filed a motion to dismiss Lumbermen's, Stanley Pulitzer, and Stanley Pulitzer, Inc. in accordance with the settlement agreements. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court refused to grant Continental's motion to void the settlement agreements and it granted Godfrey Jasmin's motion to dismiss three of the defendants, Henry Jasmin, Stanley Pulitzer, Inc., and the insurer of Stanley Pulitzer, Inc., Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company.
Continental presented a motion to the court, ex parte, seeking entry of a final judgment of dismissal of these parties under Rule 54(b) so that it could appeal that judgment. It did not suggest that its action had the consent of opposing counsel, and the motion bore a caption indicating that it was ex parte. The district judge granted the motion and signed a judgment. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company promptly filed a motion to set aside the entry of judgment as improvident. The district judge later stated that she had not known that the motion was in fact contested and would not have signed the judgment had she known this. Continental then filed its appeal based on the 54(b) certification. Five days later the district court sought to rescind its 54(b) certification because of the contest concerning the advisability of entering such an order. Godfrey Jasmin and Lumbermen's now seek to have the appeal dismissed.
We pretermit the issue presented by the parties, whether the filing of the motion to set aside the Rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cerny v. Todco Barricade Co.
...Md. 639, 530 A.2d 1237 (1987). 28. See, Corrosioneering v. Thyssen Environmental Systems, 807 F.2d 1279 (6th Cir.1986); Jasmin v. Dumas, 726 F.2d 242 (5th Cir. 1984); Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 540 N.E.2d 1381 (1989); Cox v. Howard, Weil, Labouisse, et al., 512 So.2d 897 (Miss.1987......
-
City of Salina v. Star B, Inc.
...446 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 64 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980); Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Bair, 754 F.2d 799, 800 (8th Cir.1985); Jasmin v. Dumas, 726 F.2d 242, 244 (5th Cir.1984); Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir.1981); Arlinghaus v. Ritenour, 543 F.2d 461, 463-64 (2d ......
-
Union State Bank v. Woell, 10673
...for the "infrequent harsh case." 4 Rule 54(b), F.R.Civ.P., Notes of Advisory Committee on 1946 Amendments; see also Jasmin v. Dumas, 726 F.2d 242, 244 (5th Cir.1984). In considering an application for a 54(b) order, the trial court is to exercise its discretion, "weighing the overall policy......
-
Treece v. Perrier Condo. Owners Ass'n, Inc.
...Inc. v. Harrison Cnty. Waste Water Mgmt. Dist. , 81 F. 3d 1412, 1421 (5th Cir. 1996) ).104 Cf. id. at *2 (quoting Jasmin v. Dumas , 726 F.2d 242, 244 (5th Cir. 1984) ) (citing Tow v. Bulmahn , No. 15-3141, 2016 WL 3554720, at *2 (E.D. La. June 30, 2016) ).105 See Onyx Props. LLC v. Bd. of C......