Viktor Khalimsky v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins , 364 F. App'x 158 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 09-30560     Document: 00511024540          Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/10/2010
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    February 10, 2010
    No. 09-30560                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    VIKTOR KHALIMSKY; FAINA LUSHTAK,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants
    v.
    LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
    Defendant - Appellee
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 2:07-CV-8959
    Before KING, JOLLY, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Plaintiffs–Appellants appeal the district court’s order entered April 13,
    2009, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant–Appellee on the
    Appellants’ medical expenses and loss of income claims. The parties brought a
    joint motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal and a joint motion to stay
    trial pending appeal. On June 18, 2009, the district court stayed proceedings
    and granted the motion to certify the summary judgment order as interlocutory.
    Appellants filed their notice of appeal on June 26, 2009.
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
    Case: 09-30560    Document: 00511024540       Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/10/2010
    No. 09-30560
    However, Appellants did not file the requisite petition for permission to
    appeal within ten days after the § 1292(b) order was filed in the district court,
    and Appellants still have not filed such a petition. 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    (b) (“The
    Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may
    thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if
    application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order[.]”); F ED. R.
    A PP. P. 5(a)(1) (“To request permission to appeal when an appeal is within the
    court of appeals’ discretion, a party must file a petition for permission to
    appeal.”).   “As a court of limited jurisdiction, we must note an absence of
    jurisdiction, even if not urged by the parties.” Aucoin v. Matador Servs., Inc.,
    
    749 F.2d 1180
    , 1181 (5th Cir. 1985). “Specifically, in the absence of a timely
    request for permissive appeal under F ED. R. A PP. P. 5(a), we lack jurisdiction to
    consider granting a discretionary appeal.” 
    Id.
     “ The petition [for appeal under
    Rule 5(a)] is an important complement to a procedure designed to answer the
    question of whether an immediate appeal will materially advance the ultimate
    termination of the litigation.” 
    Id.
    Here, the notice of appeal filed in the district court is not an adequate
    request under Rule 5(a) because it does not contain a statement of reasons why
    the court should allow the appeal, and it “does not timely inform the appellate
    court in a manner which allows it promptly to respond.” 
    Id.
     Therefore, we
    DISMISS this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 
    Id.
    DISMISSED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-30560

Citation Numbers: 364 F. App'x 158

Judges: King, Jolly, Stewart

Filed Date: 2/10/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024