Canfield v. American Eurocopter ( 1999 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 99-10725
Summary Calendar
_________________
Russell Canfield and Peggy Canfield,
Plaintiffs-Counter
Defendants-Appellants,
versus
American Eurocopter Corporation, Dan
Hagler, Christian Gras, and Linda Burket,
Defendants-Counter
Claimants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:99-CV-145-Y)
December 2, 1999
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Russell and Peggy Canfield (“the Canfields”) appeal from a district court order granting the
defendants summary judgment. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
On May 24, 1999, the district court granted defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment
on the Canfields’ claims but denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. On June 8, 1999,
the dist rict court granted defendants’ motion to set aside the final judgment and reopen the case,
expressly allowing the case to “proceed regarding Defendants’ counterclaims.”
Our jurisdiction extends only to “final decisions of the district courts” and certain
interlocutory orders inapplicable here. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292. “Where a claim is wholly
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
determined, it is nevertheless not appealable in the absence of a Rule 54 certificate if other claims
which have not been wholly determined remain pending in the same suit.” Sidag Aktiengesellschaft
v. Smoked Foods Products Co., Inc., 813 F.2d 81, 84 (5th Cir. 1987). Here, the Canfields have not
received Rule 54(b) certification to appeal the grant of summary judgment as to their claims, and
defendants’ counterclaims still await resolution in the district court. The grant of summary judgment
as to the Canfields’ claims thus “lacks the requisite finality to be appealable within the meaning of 28
U.S.C.A. § 1291.” Johnson v. McDole, 526 F.2d 710, 711 (5th Cir. 1976) (per curiam).
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.
-2-