Mulay Plastics, Inc. v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., Nos. 84-1905
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before CUMMINGS, Chief Judge, and POSNER and FLAUM; POSNER |
| Citation | 742 F.2d 369 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 84-1905,84-1902 and 84-2059 |
| Decision Date | 22 August 1984 |
| Parties | MULAY PLASTICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD CO., Defendant-Appellant. The MAGNAVOX COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALLY MIDWAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. The MAGNAVOX COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Honorable Prentice H. MARSHALL, Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, Respondent. |
Page 369
v.
GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD CO., Defendant-Appellant.
The MAGNAVOX COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BALLY MIDWAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
The MAGNAVOX COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
Honorable Prentice H. MARSHALL, Judge for the Northern
District of Illinois, Respondent.
Seventh Circuit.
Decided Aug. 22, 1984.
Page 370
Dean M. Trafelet, Schlegel & Trafelet, Ltd., Don H. Reuben, Reuben & Proctor, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.
Francis X. Grossi, Jr., Katten, Muchin, Zavis, Pearl & Galler, Keith F. Bode, Jenner & Block, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellant.
Before CUMMINGS, Chief Judge, and POSNER and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge.
We have consolidated these two appeals (and one mandamus petition) to consider what is likely to be a recurrent question under the recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (effective August 1, 1983) strengthening the powers and responsibilities of federal district judges to mete out sanctions for procedural abuse: the immediate appealability of orders imposing such sanctions. The issues have been fully briefed, and are ripe for disposition.
In Mulay, 102 F.R.D. 130, the district judge ordered the appellant to pay the appellee $3,820.70 as a sanction for failing to produce relevant evidence in connection with the appellee's motion for summary judgment. The motion was denied, and the case is continuing. The order to pay is not final in the sense of winding up a lawsuit, and is appealable if at all only under the "collateral order" doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). That doctrine allows the immediate appeal of some orders which, while not injunctions and so not appealable under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(1), have the same effect as injunctions: they inflict irreparable harm. See Illinois v. F.E. Moran, Inc., 740 F.2d at 533, 536-37 (7th Cir.1984); In re UNR Industries, Inc., 725 F.2d 1111, 1117-18 (7th Cir.1984). But an order to pay money as a sanction for abuse of discovery usually does not--and in this case did not--inflict irreparable harm on the party (Grand Trunk) ordered to pay. If, on appeal from the final judgment in this case, Grand Trunk convinces this court that the sanction should not have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appeal of Licht & Semonoff, No. 85-1996
...judgment. Coleman v. Sherwood Medical Industries, 746 F.2d 445, 447 (8th Cir.1984); Mulay Plastics, Inc. v. Grand Trunk Western R.R. Co., 742 F.2d 369, 370-71 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1409, 84 L.Ed.2d 798 (1985); Eastern Maico Distributors, Inc. v. Maico-Fahrze......
-
Robinson v. Tanner, No. 85-7456
...(9th Cir.1977), or the sanction would cause irreparable injury to the appellant, Mulay Plastics, Inc. v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad, 742 F.2d 369, 370-71 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1409, 84 L.Ed.2d 798 (1985). 7 The former Fifth Circuit found a discovery sancti......
-
Exchange Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Daniels, Nos. 84-2037
...claims, and the amount of fees is not a "claim" separate from the entitlement to fees. Mulay Plastics, Inc. v. Grand Trunk Western R.R., 742 F.2d 369 (7th Cir.1984) (fees awarded as penalties are not separate claim under Rule 54(b)); cf. Hershinow v. Bonamarte, 735 F.2d 264, 266-67 (7th Cir......
-
Buemi v. Kerckhoff, No. SC 91132.
...R.R. Co., the Seventh Circuit addressed the issue of whether a trial court's order imposing sanctions is subject to interlocutory appeal. 742 F.2d 369 (7th Cir.1984). In that consolidated appeal, the parties were awarded attorney's fees as [359 S.W.3d 24] sanctions because of the opposing s......
-
Appeal of Licht & Semonoff, No. 85-1996
...judgment. Coleman v. Sherwood Medical Industries, 746 F.2d 445, 447 (8th Cir.1984); Mulay Plastics, Inc. v. Grand Trunk Western R.R. Co., 742 F.2d 369, 370-71 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1409, 84 L.Ed.2d 798 (1985); Eastern Maico Distributors, Inc. v. Maico-Fahrze......
-
Robinson v. Tanner, No. 85-7456
...(9th Cir.1977), or the sanction would cause irreparable injury to the appellant, Mulay Plastics, Inc. v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad, 742 F.2d 369, 370-71 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1409, 84 L.Ed.2d 798 (1985). 7 The former Fifth Circuit found a discovery sancti......
-
Exchange Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Daniels, Nos. 84-2037
...claims, and the amount of fees is not a "claim" separate from the entitlement to fees. Mulay Plastics, Inc. v. Grand Trunk Western R.R., 742 F.2d 369 (7th Cir.1984) (fees awarded as penalties are not separate claim under Rule 54(b)); cf. Hershinow v. Bonamarte, 735 F.2d 264, 266-67 (7th Cir......
-
Buemi v. Kerckhoff, No. SC 91132.
...R.R. Co., the Seventh Circuit addressed the issue of whether a trial court's order imposing sanctions is subject to interlocutory appeal. 742 F.2d 369 (7th Cir.1984). In that consolidated appeal, the parties were awarded attorney's fees as [359 S.W.3d 24] sanctions because of the opposing s......