Nachman v. San Juan Dupont ( 1994 )

USCA1 Opinion

          December 29, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________


          Nos. 94-1410
               94-1441


                        IN RE:  TWO APPEALS ARISING OUT OF THE

                     SAN JUAN DUPONT PLAZA HOTEL FIRE LITIGATION.

                              _________________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________

                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________

                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
_____________

                              _________________________

               Judith  Resnik,  with  whom  Dennis E.  Curtis,  Richard  A.
______________               _________________   ___________
          Bieder,  and Koskoff, Koskoff &  Bieder, P.C. were  on brief, for
______       ________________________________
          appellants Bieder, et al.
               Jose E. Fernandez-Sein on brief for appellant Nachman.
______________________
               Steven C. Lausell, with whom Jimenez, Graffam & Lausell were
_________________            __________________________
          on brief, for appellee Jimenez, Graffam & Lausell.
               Will Kemp, with whom Stanley Chesley, Wendell Gauthier, John
_________            _______________  ________________  ____
          Cummings, David Indiano and Harrison, Kemp & Jones, Chtd. were on
________  _____________     _____________________________
          brief, for remaining appellees.

                              _________________________



                              _________________________
















                    Per Curiam.   These  two appeals were  consolidated for
Per Curiam.
__________

          oral  argument  with  a  number   of  other  appeals.  ("the  Fee

          Appeals").  Unlike the Fee Appeals, which are concerned primarily

          (albeit  not exclusively) with  a global, end-of-litigation award

          of  attorneys' fees, these two  appeals involve only  an order in

          respect to  costs.1  Moreover,  the order appealed  from resolves

          only one isolated  component of  the dispute over  costs in  this

          massive litigation.  In other orders anent costs, e.g., Order No.
____

          478; Order No. 510-A, the district court has limned its preferred

          approach  for  resolving certain  other  aspects  of the  overall

          inquiry  into costs.   However,  most of  the issues  relating to

          costs remain pending, unresolved, in the court below.

                    While  we have  appellate jurisdiction over  the global

          fee award, see In re Nineteen Appeals, 982  F.2d 603, 608-10 (1st
___ ______________________

          Cir.  1992), there  is as  yet  no global  costs award.   In  the

          ordinary  course, the court of appeals may hear appeals only from

          final orders,  see 28 U.S.C.    1291, and  the orders  entered to
___

          date  in respect to costs  are not sufficiently  final to qualify

          under that rubric.

                    To  be  sure,  there  are exceptions  to  the  finality

          principle    but  none are  applicable here.   In  particular, we

          reject appellant's  suggestion that the "common  fund" exception,

          see In  re Nineteen Appeals, 982 F.2d at 609, pertains.  We think
___ _______________________

          that  the  exception,  when  other  requirements  are  satisfied,

____________________

               1The two appeals in question are both appeals from Order No.
          520 (involving the so-called  "Foulds' expense").  Neither notice
          of appeal raises any other issues.

                                          2














          applies  to global awards, not  to piecemeal interim  orders.  If

          every link in the chain could be appealed separately, chaos would

          result.

                    We need go no  further.  We dismiss these  two appeals,

          without  prejudice, for  want  of appellate  jurisdiction.2   The

          issues  raised therein may be  raised anew in  appeals taken from

          the district court's  final (global)  order in  respect to  costs

          when such an order is entered.



          Appeals dismissed.
Appeals dismissed.
_________________


























____________________

               2To  the extent that the Fee Appeals attempt to raise claims
          related  to costs, e.g., Appeal No. 94-1156, which purports to be
____
          an appeal from two orders anent costs (No. 478 and No. 510-A), as
          well as from  the global award of fees, we  will, when we release
          our opinion  covering those cases, dismiss  without prejudice the
          portions of the appeals relating to the cost orders.

                                          3