Penton v. Pompano Const. Co., Inc., 90-5469
| Decision Date | 29 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-5469,90-5469 |
| Parties | Robert E. PENTON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. POMPANO CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., and Futch Leasing, Inc., Defendants, Futch Construction, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Gail Leverett, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Darryl J. Tschirn, Metairie, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge, and DYER, Senior Circuit Judge.
We lack jurisdiction in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1990) because we do not have a final judgment terminating the case as to all of the claims and parties. Williams v. Bishop, 732 F.2d 885, 886 (11th Cir.1984). Specifically, the district court did not dispose of the plaintiff's, Robert E. Penton, Sr.'s (Penton), claims against one of the three defendants, Pompano Construction Company, Inc. The district court did dispose finally of Penton's claims against the appellant, Futch Construction, Inc. (Futch), awarding him $210,000 in damages. The district court, however, did not enter this judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) (1990), so as to render the judgment appealable under section 1291.
Rather than dismiss this appeal, we stay our hand to permit Penton to obtain from the district court a final judgment against Futch, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). We give Penton, or Futch in his stead, thirty days to obtain that judgment. If a Rule 54(b) judgment is entered within that time and Futch takes a new appeal, this court shall consolidate that appeal with the instant appeal and, without further briefing, forthwith dismiss the current appeal and dispose of the new appeal on the merits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunt v. Hawthorne Associates, Inc.
...under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the judgment has adjudicated all claims against all parties. See, e.g., Penton v. Pompano Constr. Co., 963 F.2d 321, 321-22 (11th Cir.1992). Hunt's amendment of his complaint, which deleted ALPA and O'Connor from the action, operated to dismiss those parties f......
-
Haney v. City of Cumming
...over which we have jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291; see Mesa v. United States, 61 F.3d 20 (11th Cir.1995); Penton v. Pompano Constr. Co., 963 F.2d 321 (11th Cir.1992); CHARLES A. WRIGHT, LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS Sec. 102, at 756 (5th ed. 1994). 5 The Plaintiffs and the Forsyth County Defenda......
-
Stermer v. Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co. (In re Atif, Inc.)
... ... inappropriate); see also Penton v. Pompano Constr. Co., ... Inc., 963 F.2d 321, 322 (11th Cir. 1992) ... ...
-
Construction Aggregates, Ltd. v. Forest Commodities Corp.
...R. Civ. Proc. 54(b), that no just reason exists for delay and expressly direct an entry of judgment. See Penton v. Pompano Constr. Co., Inc., 963 F.2d 321, 321-22 (11th Cir.1992). No rule 54(b) certification is present in this case.For another means of making a district court order appealab......