Oak Construction Company v. Huron Cement Company
| Citation | 475 F.2d 1220 |
| Decision Date | 22 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1853.,72-1853. |
| Parties | OAK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HURON CEMENT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Richard H. Scholl, Detroit, Mich., Schaden & Peplowski, Detroit, Mich., on brief, for plaintiff-appellant.
George B. Martin, Detroit, Mich., Dickinson, Wright, McKean & Cudlip, Detroit, Mich., on brief, for defendant-appellee.
Before EDWARDS, CELEBREZZE, and McCREE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant cement company in a Robinson-Patman action, 15 U.S.C. § 13(a), (d), and (e), to recover treble damages for injuries resulting from unlawful price discrimination.
The record reveals that a counterclaim for non-payment of a contract debt was filed by defendant but has not yet been adjudicated. Since all the claims before the court were not decided in the grant of summary judgment, that order is interlocutory. Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Brunsing, 378 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1967); 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 54.351, at 582 (2d ed. 1948).
Federal courts of appeal do not have jurisdiction of interlocutory orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, David v. District of Columbia, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 92, 187 F.2d 204 (D.C.Cir.1950), although in an action involving multiple claims or parties the district court may enter a final, appealable judgment with respect to less than all the claims or parties if it certifies that there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs the entry of judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). No such certification or direction was entered in this case. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
This lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured now by a belated Rule 54(b) certification by the District Court. Williams v. Bernhardt Bros. Tugboat Service, Inc., 357 F.2d 883 (7th Cir. 1966). Our jurisdiction attaches, if at all, when notice of appeal is filed in the district court. See Fed.R.App.P. 3(a). If all the jurisdictional prerequisites have not been satisfied at that point, we have no choice but to dismiss the action and "indicate to the parties that if the trial court enters a new judgment and accompanies it with a Rule 54(b) certificate, the second appeal will be heard on the record and briefs prepared for the first appeal, as supplemented by the new judgment and certificate." 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1193, at 26 (Wrig...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Volvo North America Corp. v. Men's Intern. Professional Tennis Council
...the universal rule. See, e.g., Kirtland v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 568 F.2d 1166, 1169 (5th Cir.1978); Oak Constr. Co. v. Huron Cement Co., 475 F.2d 1220, 1221 (6th Cir.1973) (per curiam). We do not mean to imply by this comment that a post-appeal request for Rule 54(b) certification is gen......
-
Kirtland v. J. Ray McDermott & Co.
...court to consider the matter since 1954. TMA Fund, Inc. v. Biever, 3 Cir. 1975, 520 F.2d 639, 642, note 4; Oak Construction Co. v. Huron Cement Co., 6 Cir. 1973, 475 F.2d 1220; Williams v. Bernhardt Bros. Tugboat Service, Inc., 7 Cir. 1966, 357 F.2d 883; Wolfson v. Blumberg, 2 Cir. 1965, 34......
-
Jago v. U.S. Dist. Court, Northern Dist. of Ohio, Eastern Division at Cleveland
...and transfers such jurisdiction to the court of appeals, citing the following Sixth Circuit cases: Oak Construction Co. v. Huron Cement Co., 475 F.2d 1220 (6th Cir. 1973); Hogg v. United States, 411 F.2d 578 (6th Cir. 1969); Keohane v. Swarco, Inc., 320 F.2d 429 (6th Cir. 1963); United Stat......
-
Lewis v. B.F. Goodrich Co.
...Tilden Financial Corp. v. Palo Tire Service, Inc., 596 F.2d 604, 606-07 (3d Cir.1979). But cf. Oak Construction Co. v. Huron Cement Co., 475 F.2d 1220, 1221 (6th Cir.1973) (per curiam) (no 54(b) certification was entered before appellate court's decision; "[t]his lack of jurisdiction cannot......