Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Ferdie Meche v. Dan-Tex International, Inc.

681 F.2d 264

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1982-07-16
Topic
international-arbitration

BY THE COURT: Appellant Meche seeks to appeal an interlocutory award of fees and expenses made pursuant to Rule 30(g)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 Meche concedes the order is interlocutory but claims it is nevertheless appealable under the rule of Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). We agree with our brethren of the Ninth Circuit, however, that Cohen appeals may not be taken from orders that “effectively may be reviewed and corrected if and when final judgment results.” Johnny Pflocks, Inc. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 634 F.2d 1215, 1216 (1980) (quoting from 337 U.S. at 546, 69 S.Ct. at 1225). This, like the Rule 37(a)(4) order in Pflocks, is such an order.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ferdie Meche v. Dan-Tex International, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
9 opinions
MECHE v. DAN-TEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.,681 F.2d 264(5th Cir. 1982)
FERDIE MECHE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DAN-TEX INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 82-3382.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 16, 1982.
Page 265
Guglielmo Lopez, James T. Guglielmo, Peter F. Caviness, Opelousas, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Camp, Carmouche, Palmer, Barsh Hunter, Donald A. Hoffman, Robert I. Siegel, New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before GEE, RANDALL and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
[1] Appellant Meche seeks to appeal an interlocutory award of fees and expenses made pursuant to Rule30(g)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1Meche concedes the order is interlocutory but claims it is nevertheless appealable under the rule ofCohenv. Beneficial Loan Corp.,337 U.S. 541,69 S.Ct. 1221,93 L.Ed. 1528(1949). We agree with our brethren of the Ninth Circuit, however, thatCohenappeals may not be taken from orders that "effectively may be reviewed and corrected if and when final judgment results."Johnny Pflocks, Inc. v. Firestone TireRubber Co.,634 F.2d 1215,1216(1980) (quoting from337 U.S. at 546,69 S.Ct. at 1225). This, like the Rule 37(a)(4) order inPflocks,is such an order.

[2] IT IS ORDERED that the motion of appellees to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED.
  1. Permitting such awards where a party, in person or by counsel, attends a noticed deposition but the witness, for want of having been subpoenaed, does not. ↩