Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Ratner v. Scientific Resources Corp.

462 F.2d 616

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-06-08
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-appellant brought this action against numerous defendants on the following legal grounds: 1. Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. 2. Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934. 3. Fraud under Fla.Stat. § 517.301, F.S.A. 4. Common law fraud.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ratner v. Scientific Resources Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
RATNER v. SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES CORP.,462 F.2d 616(5th Cir. 1972)
LEE RATNER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES CORP. ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS, DON A. MAYERSON ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
LEE RATNER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES CORP. ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
Nos. 71-3142, 71-3436.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 8, 1972.
David M. Stolar, Miami Beach, Fla., David S. Ward, Asher B. Lans, New York City, Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff-appellant; Lans, Feinberg Cohen, Robert Stephan Cohen, New York City, of counsel.

William R. Alvin, Frates, Floyd, Pearson Stewart, Robert L. Floyd, Miami, Fla., Perry S. Bechtle, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants-appellees; James D. Little, Miami, Fla., of counsel.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before PHILLIPS,fn*THORNBERRY and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Plaintiff-appellant brought this action against numerous defendants on the following legal grounds:

1. Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.

2. Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934.

3. Fraud under Fla.Stat. §517.301, F.S.A.

4. Common law fraud.

[2] All these bases for relief were grounded on identical factual allegations. The district court,53 F.R.D. 325, dismissed the allegations of Florida statutory and common law fraud as to only four of the defendants, appellees here, on the basis that they could not properly be served with process on any claim other than that arising under the Securities Act.

[3] It is clear that the order of the district court is not final underPage 61728 U.S.C.A. § 1291; Schwartz v. Eaton, 2d Cir. 1959,264 F.2d 195, and there has been no attempt to comply with the requirements of28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b) or Fed.R.Civ.P.54(b).

[4] The appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of jurisdiction.Page 624
  1. Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. ↩