Loffland Bros. Co. v. Rougeau, 81-1393
| Decision Date | 05 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1393,81-1393 |
| Citation | 655 F.2d 1031 |
| Parties | 26 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,035 LOFFLAND BROTHERS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Weldon J. ROUGEAU, Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, U. S. Department of Labor; Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor; and Cecil Andrus, Secretary of Interior, Defendants- Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
R. Robert Huff of Huff & Huff, Inc., and James R. Eagleton of Eagleton, Eagleton & Owens, Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiff-appellant.
James P. Turner, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and Walter W. Barnett and Stephen L. Mikochik, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellees.
Before BARRETT, McKAY and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Tenth Circuit R. 10(e). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Loffland Brothers seeks to appeal an order of the district court remanding for final agency (Department of Labor) action a decision of the Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), debarring Loffland from future federal contracts. The court stayed enforcement until the director of OFCCP gave his approval of the final administrative decision. This sanction was imposed for alleged noncompliance with Executive Order 11246, which requires affirmative action in the employment of minorities and women by federal contractors and subcontractors.
The question posed is whether the decision of the district court is a final order appealable under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We believe that it is not.
The district court's order resolved none of the questions raised in Loffland's petition for review. Rather, the court on remand sought only to establish what in fact the position of the agency is at present regarding Loffland's alleged noncompliance.
The decision to remand is not a resolution of the controversy on its merits. Neither is the determination of collateral order appealable under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). We conclude that the district court's action is not a final order appealable to this court.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. S.E.C.
...v. Gardner, 381 F.2d 283, 285-86 (8th Cir.1967); Gilcrist v. Schweiker, 645 F.2d 818, 818-19 (9th Cir.1981); Loffland Brothers Co. v. Rougeau, 655 F.2d 1031, 1032 (10th Cir.1981); Howell v. Schweiker, 699 F.2d 524, 526-27 (11th Cir.1983); Cabot Corp. v. United States, 788 F.2d 1539, 1542 (F......
-
Mesa Oil, Inc. v. U.S.
...a "decision to remand is not a resolution of the controversy on its merits," and is not a final decision. Loffland Bros., Co. v. Rougeau, 655 F.2d 1031, 1032 (10th Cir.1981). The district court's bifurcated order here, determining one issue but remanding Mesa's alternative payment request, ......
-
Annett v. University of Kansas, 01-2367-JAR.
...the terms "defendant" and "University" interchangeably when referring to the defendant, University of Kansas. 2. See Loffland Bros. Co. v. Rougeau, 655 F.2d 1031 (1981). 3. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). 4. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). ......
-
American Hawaii Cruises v. Skinner
...468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2457, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978)). The district court's order does not so qualify. See Loffland Bros. Co. v. Rougeau, 655 F.2d 1031, 1032 (10th Cir.1981) (per curiam). The order did not "conclusively determine" the viability of the Coast Guard's ruling on the S/S Monterey's c......