Wyre v. St. Helena Parish School Board ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                     United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    For the Fifth Circuit                  June 8, 2007
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    No. 06-31068                         Clerk
    Summary Calendar
    MATTIE WYRE
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    VERSUS
    ST. HELENA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ------------------------------
    GUSTAVIA CEASAR
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    VERSUS
    IBERVILLE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ------------------------------
    LIONEL DUNN, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
    situated individuals,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    VERSUS
    EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    For the Middle District of Louisiana
    (3:04-CV-82)
    Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Appellants appeal the district court’s denial of their motion
    for conditional class certification pursuant to § 216(b) of the
    Fair Labor Standards Act. Appellees contend that we do not have
    jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
    This Court’s jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final
    decisions under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , interlocutory decisions under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    , non-final judgments certified as final under Federal
    Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and other non-final orders or
    judgments to which an exception applies. Clark v. Johnson, 
    278 F.3d 459
    ,   460   (5th   Cir.   2002).   The   denial   of   a   §   216(b)   class
    certification is not a final decision under § 1291, nor does it
    fall under the “collateral order” exception to § 1291's final
    judgment rule. See Baldridge v. SBC Commc’ns, Inc., 
    404 F.3d 930
    ,
    931, 933 (5th Cir. 2005). Further, absent certification under
    § 1292(b), it is not an interlocutory decision over which we have
    jurisdiction. See § 1292(a). The district court did not certify its
    decision as final under Rule 54(b), and there is no other exception
    that applies to give us jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is
    DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-31068

Judges: Demoss, Stewart, Prado

Filed Date: 6/8/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024