Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Hamman v. United States

399 F.2d 673

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1968-08-22
Topic
general

BARNES, Circuit Judge: Three cases are before this court, consolidated on appeal, from a summary judgment dismissing Count III of plaintiffs’ respective Third Amended Complaints, for failure to state a cause of action under the Clayton Act. (15 U.S.C. § 15.) The document dismissing the Third Cause of Action in the Third Amended Complaint was “with prejudice and on the merits,” (C.T. 73). It was denominated “Partial Judgment.” By its terms, both in its title and body, it was not “a final decision.” (28 U.S.C. § 1291.) No statement that the order involved a controlling question of law was stated in such order. (28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).) It is not an order falling within § 1292(a). Cf.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hamman v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
HAMMAN v. UNITED STATES,399 F.2d 673(9th Cir. 1968)
Elsie HAMMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America and Washington Iron
Works, et al., Appellees. Arlene Hartung REED, etc., Appellant, v. UNITED
STATES of America and Washington Iron Works, et al., Appellees. Anna
LOYNING, etc., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America and Washington Iron
Works, et al., Appellees.
Nos. 21986, 21986-A, 21986-B.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
August 22, 1968.
Page 674
Harry M. Philo (argued), Muskegon, Mich., Lee Overfelt, Billings, Mont., J.H. McAlear, Red Lodge, Mont., Philo, Maki, Moore, Pitts, Ravitz, Glotta, Cockrell Robb, Detroit, Mich., for appellants.

Robert E. Burns (argued), of Crimmins, Kent, Bradley Burns, San Francisco, Cal., Weymouth D. Symmes of Anderson, Symmes, Forbes, Peete Brown; Cooke, Moulton, Bellingham, Longo Mather, Billings, Mont., Moody Brickett, U.S. Atty., Butte, Mont., for appellees.
Before BARNES and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, andfn*BOWEN, District Judge.
BARNES, Circuit Judge:
Three cases are before this court, consolidated on appeal, from a summary judgment dismissing Count III of plaintiffs' respective Third Amended Complaints, for failure to state a cause of action under the Clayton Act. (15 U.S.C. § 15.)

The document dismissing the Third Cause of Action in the Third Amended Complaint was "with prejudice and on the merits," (C.T. 73). It was denominated "Partial Judgment." By its terms, both in its title and body, it was not "a final decision." (28 U.S.C. § 1291.) No statement that the order involved a controlling question of law was stated in such order. (28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).) It is not an order falling within § 1292(a). Cf. Rule 54(b), Fed. R.Civ.P. We therefore are compelled to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. CMAX, Inc. v. Drewry Photocolor Co.,295 F.2d 695(9th Cir. 1962); King v. California Co.,236 F.2d 413(5th Cir. 1956), cert. denied,352 U.S. 1007, 77 S.Ct. 569, 1 L. Ed.2d 551 (1967) District 65 v. McKague,216 F.2d 153(3d Cir. 1954).

A dismissal of a cause of action as to certain defendants only is not appealable in absence of express determination of the trial court that there was no just reason for delay. Steiner v. 20th Cent.-Fox Film Corp.,220 F.2d 105(9th Cir. 1955); Miles v. City of Chandler,297 F.2d 690(9th Cir. 1961); Perry v. Bammar,330 F.2d 240(9th Cir. 1964); Baca Land Cattle Co. v. New Mexico Timber, Inc.,384 F.2d 701(10th Cir. 1967).

The trial court cannot by certificate make final and appealable a ruling which is not final and appealable under § 1291. Sears Roebuck Co. v. Mackey,351 U.S. 427at 437, 76 S.Ct. 895, 100 L.Ed. 1297 (1956).

Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.Page 675
  1. Hon. John C. Bowen, Senior United States District Judge, Seattle, Washington, sitting by designation. ↩