Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

LaTrieste Restaurant & Cabaret, Inc. v. Village of Port Chester

96 F.3d 598

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1996-09-20
Topic: general

PER CURIAM: The Village of Port Chester and the individual appellees move to dismiss LaTrieste’s appeal from Judge Parker’s summary judgment order, dismissing LaTrieste’s claims against certain defendants on the grounds of qualified immunity. Movants argue that we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the summary judgment is not a final order. We agree. We have jurisdiction over appeals from final orders and decisions of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In general, an order denying summary judgment or granting partial summary judgment cannot by itself form the basis of an appeal because it is nonfinal.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed LaTrieste Restaurant & Cabaret, Inc. v. Village of Port Chester. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 2 opinions

LATRIESTE v. VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER,96 F.3d 598(2nd Cir. 1996)

LATRIESTE RESTAURANT AND CABARET, INC., D/B/A THE DIAMOND CLUB;

THE DIAMOND CLUB, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS, v. VILLAGE

OF PORT CHESTER; DOMENICK TAMARRO; JAMES SAVAGE; CHRISTINE KORFF;

MICHAEL ANTAKI; THOMAS CERUZZI; JANUSZ RICHARDS; ZONING BOARD OF

THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER, DEFENDANTS, JOHN BRANCA; ANTHONY

FONTANA; JOHN BELFATTO; CARL VERRASTRO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES-MOVANTS.

Docket No. 96-7873.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: September 17, 1996.

Decided: September 20, 1996.

Page 599

James L. Fisher, London Fischer, New York City, for Defendants-Appellees-Movants.

Ronald Cohen, of counsel to Tashjian Padian, New York City, for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents.

Motion to dismiss LaTrieste's appeal from a summary judgment order entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Barrington D. Parker, Jr., Judge), dismissing LaTrieste's claims against certain defendants, on the basis of qualified immunity. Movants argue that we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's judgment was not a final order. We agree and dismiss.

Before: LUMBARD, MESKILL, and WINTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[1] The Village of Port Chester and the individual appellees move to dismiss LaTrieste's appeal from Judge Parker's summary judgment order, dismissing LaTrieste's claims against certain defendants on the grounds of qualified immunity. Movants argue that we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the summary judgment is not a final order. We agree.

[2] We have jurisdiction over appeals from final orders and decisions of the district court. 28 U.S.C. §(s) 1291. In general, an order denying summary judgment or granting partial summary judgment cannot by itself form the basis of an appeal because it is nonfinal. United States v. 228 Acres of Land Dwelling,916 F.2d 808, 811 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied sub. nom., Moreno v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Admin.,498 U.S. 1091(1991). Nonetheless, a district court decision may be appealed under the collateral order doctrine if it "'finally determine[s] claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.'" Weaver v. Brenner,40 F.3d 527, 533 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949)).

[3] A denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity may be appealable because the very thing from which the defendant is immune — a trial — will, absent review, recur and cannot be remedied by a later appeal. Johnson v. Jones, 115 S. Ct. 2151, 2155-56 (1995); Mitchell v. Forsyth,472 U.S. 511, 526-27 (1985). A grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity does not lead to any loss of right that cannot be remedied on appeal. Branson v. City of Los Angeles,912 F.2d 334, 335 n.1 (9th Cir. 1990).

[4] All circuits that have considered whether the collateral order doctrine confers appellate jurisdiction over appeals arising from a grant of partial summary judgment based on qualified immunity have universally held that such a judgment is not immediately appealable. See Winfrey v. School Bd.,Page 60059 F.3d 155, 158 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Clemens v. Kansas,951 F.2d 287, 288 (10th Cir. 1991); Branson, 912 F.2d at 335; Franzen v. Federal Land Bank,897 F.2d 973, 974 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam); Theis v. Smith,827 F.2d 260, 261 (7th Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Coe ex rel. Coe v. Ziegler,817 F.2d 29, 30 (6th Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Thompson v. Betts,754 F.2d 1243, 1246 (5th Cir. 1985). We adopt the reasoning in Winfrey, 59 F.3d at 158, and hold that we lack jurisdiction under these circumstances.

[5] We therefore grant the motion to dismiss LaTrieste's appeal.