Williams v. Boeing Co.
| Decision Date | 13 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 751,No. 82-3212,D,751,82-3212 |
| Citation | 681 F.2d 615 |
| Parties | Leslie E. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOEING COMPANY; International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodgeefendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Michael J. Heavey, Seattle, Wash., Mark E. Barber, Warren & Kellogg, Renton, Wash., for plaintiff-appellant.
Hugh Hafer, John F. Aslin, Seattle, Wash., Joseph P. Manners, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Before ANDERSON, ALARCON and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
On May 17, 1982, we granted appellant's motion for voluntary dismissal of this appeal. We now grant appellant's motion for reinstatement of the appeal and take this opportunity to address a question of appellate jurisdiction that the court has not previously had occasion to decide.
Appellant's motion for voluntary dismissal was premised on the belief that the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of one defendant entirely and in favor of all defendants on certain claims, entered by a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), was not appealable because it did not finally resolve all claims against all parties in the action. Through apparent lack of attention to the specific language of the order, appellant did not realize, until after the appeal had been dismissed, that the order directed the entry of judgment in accordance with the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
In light of the explicit determination that there was no just reason to delay the entry of judgment and the express direction that judgment be entered, the judgment entered by the district court clerk on March 19, 1982, was appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and the time for appeal began to run on its entry. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1); see Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 435-36, 76 S.Ct. 895, 899-900, 100 L.Ed. 1297 (1956). Unlike an interlocutory order, which may be appealed either at the time of entry or after final judgment, see Baldwin v. Redwood City, 540 F.2d 1360, 1364 (9th Cir. 1976), this judgment was final as to the claims and parties within its scope, and could not be reviewed as part of an appeal from a subsequent judgment as to the remaining claims and parties. See Scholl v. District of Columbia, 331 F.2d 1018, 1019-20 (D.C.Cir.1964); cf. Page v. Preisser, 585 F.2d 336, 338-39 (8th Cir. 19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Com. v. Goodman
-
Coursen v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc.
...dismissal order since appellants would be barred from obtaining any relief without ever having obtained any review. In Williams v. Boeing Co., 681 F.2d 615 (9th Cir.1982), this court reinstated an appeal where a voluntary dismissal of an appeal was premised on the erroneous belief that a fi......
-
Barrow v. Falck, s. 90-3425
...the time provided by Fed.R.App.P. 4 for commencing an appeal. They had none. Our research turned up one candidate, Williams v. Boeing Co., 681 F.2d 615 (9th Cir.1982). The ninth circuit did not mention the date of the motion to reinstate, which may have been filed within the time to take an......
-
U.S. v. Arevalo
...on that claim where he previously voluntarily dismissed it. Our decision today is consistent with our prior holding in Williams v. Boeing, 681 F.2d 615, 616 (9th Cir.1982), where, in a terse per curiam opinion, we granted an appellant's motion to reinstate a voluntarily dismissed appeal bec......