Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Paul Patchick v. Kensington Publishing Corporation, a New York Corporation

743 F.2d 675

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1984-09-24
Topic: international-arbitration

How later courts describe this case

suggesting that an order dismissing some defendants with prejudice would be final if 1
dismissing appeal of district court’s order dismissing two 13 defendants as premature because the district court’s order was not a final, appealable 14 order given that other defendants remained in the action
action not final for purposes of appeal where dispute over service of process not yet resolved by district court
“When, however, defendants remain in the action upon whom service has been made, we cannot assume that the action is final.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Paul Patchick v. Kensington Publishing Corporation, a New York Corporation. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 63 opinions

PATCHICK v. KENSINGTON PUB. CORP.,743 F.2d 675(9th Cir. 1984)

PAUL PATCHICK, APPELLANT, v. KENSINGTON PUBLISHING CORPORATION, A NEW YORK

CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES.

No. 84-1992.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 20, 1984.

Decided September 24, 1984.

Page 676

Christopher Engh, Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry Christopherson, Stockton, Cal., for appellant.

Michael Weisberg, Oakland, Cal., Edward Sussman, James Schwartz, Goldschmidt, Fredericks Oshatz, New York City, for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Before WRIGHT, NORRIS and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[1] On June 27, 1983, Appellant Paul Patchick filed this diversity action for breach of contract against five named defendants: Kensington Publishing Corporation (Kensington); Zebra Books, Inc. (Zebra); Richard Curtis, Richard Curtis Literary Agency, and Richard Curtis Associates, Inc. (Curtis defendants); and other unnamed defendants. Patchick alleged that defendants failed to publish and promote his book, "Eruption." Patchick filed an amended complaint on October 6, 1983, naming the same defendants.

[2] In November 1983 defendants Kensington and Zebra filed a motion to dismiss the action as to them for lack of personal jurisdiction, or alternatively, to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the District Court for the Southern District of New York or to stay proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to9 U.S.C. § 3. Only these defendants had been served at the time their motion was filed.

[3] Patchick attempted to serve the Curtis defendants in late 1983. Curtis's attorneys contested the adequacy of service on the grounds that (1) the person upon whom service was allegedly made, John Bradley, is not the managing agent of Richard Curtis Associates, Inc., and (2) the process server never mailed the summons and complaint as alleged in the affidavit of service.

[4] On March 16, 1984, the district court granted defendants Kensington and Zebra's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that Patchick failed to establish that Kensington and Zebra engaged in continuous and systematic activity within the State of California. The dispute over service of the Curtis defendants meanwhile remained pending. Patchick filed a notice of appeal from the March 16 order on April 4.

[5] After appellant filed the opening brief, appellees Kensington and Zebra filed aPage 677motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the district court's order dismissing some but not all of the defendants is not a "final decision" appealable under28 U.S.C. § 1291.SeeFed.R. Civ.P. 54(b). We agree.

[6] If an action is dismissed as to all of the defendants who have been served and only unserved defendants remain, the district court's order may be considered final under Section 1291 for the purpose of perfecting an appeal.See, e.g., DeTore v. Local,245,615 F.2d 980(3d Cir. 1980);Leonhard v. United States,633 F.2d 599(2d Cir. 1980),cert. denied,451 U.S. 908, 101 S.Ct. 1975, 68 L.Ed.2d 295 (1981);Siegmund v. GeneralCommodities Corp.,175 F.2d 952(9th Cir. 1949). In such circumstances there is no reason to assume that there will be any further adjudication of the action.

[7] When, however, defendants remain in the action upon whom service has been made, we cannot assume that the action is final. Here, Patchick attempted to serve the Curtis defendants. Although the Curtis defendants have not yet appeared in the action or filed an answer to the complaint, Patchick has not conceded that service was improper. The action cannot be final until the service dispute is resolved by the district court in favor of the Curtis defendants or until the action is dismissed as to those defendants.

[8] The appeal is therefore premature and is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.