NAACP of Louisiana v. Michot, 73-1312.
| Decision Date | 11 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1312.,73-1312. |
| Parties | NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR the ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE OF LOUISIANA and Emmitt J. Douglas, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Louis J. MICHOT, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Johnnie A. Jones, Walter C. Dumas, Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen. of La., Reginald Coco, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thomas Rayer, Sp. Counsel, Victor A. Sachse, Baton Rouge, La., Thomas A. Rayer, New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
Before GEWIN, THORNBERRY and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
After a complete review of the record, it is our considered opinion that this court does not have jurisdiction to hear the instant appeal and thus we are compelled to dismiss. We reach this conclusion on two alternative grounds. First, this is an appeal from the lower court's order denying appellant's motion to consolidate its case with a suit previously filed in that court. A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to consolidate a case pending before it. An order denying consolidation is not a final appealable order. See, 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2386 (1971); United States v. Chelsea Towers, Inc., 404 F.2d 329 (3d Cir. 1968).
Furthermore, appellant did not timely perfect an appeal. Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that a notice of appeal be filed in the district court within thirty days. The order denying consolidation was entered on November 28, 1972, but appellant did not file its notice of appeal until December 29, 1972. Thus thirty-one days elapsed before the notice of appeal was filed and therefore this court is without jurisdiction to hear this appeal, in the absence of further proceedings in the district court under Rule 4(a), F.R. A.P., to determine the existence of excusable neglect in the late filing of the notice of appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Henney
...is appealable after final judgment, it is not disturbed except when the district court has abused its discretion. See NAACP v. Michot, 480 F.2d 547, 548 (5th Cir.1973); Davis v. Yellow Cab Co., 220 F.2d 790, 791 (5th Cir.1955) ("the trial court had a large discretion in the matter which wil......
-
Master Key Antitrust Litigation, In re
...of issues should interlocutory review of these discretionary orders be allowed. See National Association for Advancement of Colored People of Louisiana v. Michot, 480 F.2d 547, 548 (5th Cir. 1973) (denying consolidation); United States v. Chelsea Towers, Inc., 404 F.2d 329 (3d Cir. 1968) (d......
-
Lyons v. Andersen
...1351, 1359 (D.Minn. 1991); A/S Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Constr. Co., 559 F.2d 928 (4th Cir.1977); N.A.A.C.P. of Louisiana v. Michot, 480 F.2d 547 (5th Cir.1973). Rule 42 requires the presence of common questions of law and fact as a prerequisite for any consolidation. Magnavox ......
-
Lieb, Matter of
...98 S.Ct. 1252, 55 L.Ed.2d 772 (1978); In re Master Key Antitrust Litig., 528 F.2d 5, 14 (2d Cir.1975); cf. NAACP of La. v. Michot, 480 F.2d 547, 548 (5th Cir.1973) (per curiam) ("An order denying consolidation [under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a ) ] is not a final appealable According to appellants, t......