From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinson v. Parke-Davis and Company

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Aug 17, 1982
685 F.2d 912 (4th Cir. 1982)

Summary

holding that dismissal of some, but not all, claims or parties not immediately appealable absent Rule 54(b) certification

Summary of this case from Cruey v. Early

Opinion

No. 81-1819.

Argued May 6, 1982.

Decided August 17, 1982.

David Rosenblum, Alexandria, Va. (Herbert Rosenblum, Rosenblum Rosenblum, Alexandria, Va., Edward S. Horowitz, Horowitz, Oneglia, Goldstein, Foran Parker, College Park, Md., on brief), for appellant.

Jean-Pierre Garnier, Falls Church, Va. (Kohlhaas, Garnier Webb, Falls Church, Va., on brief), for appellee.

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

Before RUSSELL, WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.


This action was instituted by a mother and her daughter for injuries to the daughter ostensibly resulting from the mother's use of the defendant's drug Norlutin during her pregnancy. The two plaintiffs asserted five causes of action in their complaint. In response to a motion by the defendant, the district court dismissed all claims of the mother after concluding that they were barred by the applicable Virginia statute of limitations. Va. Code § 8.01-243(B). The court also dismissed two of the five causes of action of the daughter. The mother appealed her dismissal, while the daughter's case continued through discovery.

While the district court's order appears to end the mother's litigation, the court failed to make "an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and . . . an express direction for the entry of judgment," as provided for in Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 54(b). Because the district court's order adjudicated "fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties", the order was still subject to revision by the district court and would be appealable only upon an express Rule 54(b) certification. E.g., Schnur Co. v. McDonald, 328 F.2d 103 (4th Cir. 1964); Wright Miller, 10 Federal Practice Procedure § 2660 (1973). Without such certification, this court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We express no opinion as to whether or not the appeal should be certified under FRCP 54(b) should the appellant make proper application to the district court following the dismissal of her appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

Robinson v. Parke-Davis and Company

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Aug 17, 1982
685 F.2d 912 (4th Cir. 1982)

holding that dismissal of some, but not all, claims or parties not immediately appealable absent Rule 54(b) certification

Summary of this case from Cruey v. Early

recognizing that an order is not final if it disposes of "'fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties'" (quoting Rule 54(b))

Summary of this case from Noe v. City Nat'l Bank

dismissing a plaintiff's appeal for lack of jurisdiction where all of her claims were dismissed but some of her co-plaintiff's claims proceeded to discovery

Summary of this case from Ashmore v. CGI Grp., Inc.

stating that "[b]ecause the district court's order adjudicated 'fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties' " and because the district court did not "'make an express determination that there [was] no just reason for delay and . . . an express direction for the entry of judgment,'" the order was still subject to revision by the district court and would be appealable only upon an express Rule 54(b) certification

Summary of this case from Harper v. Blagg

In United States v. Carmichael, supra, 685 F.2d 912, the court stated: "A low return rate of questionnaires without some evidence that such rate caused underrepresentation of some group, does not amount to a substantial violation of the [Jury Selection and Service] Act. Without other evidence, unfair cross section simply cannot be inferred."

Summary of this case from State v. Gibbs
Case details for

Robinson v. Parke-Davis and Company

Case Details

Full title:SUZANNE L. ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF, AND CONSTANCE ROBINSON, APPELLANT, v…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Aug 17, 1982

Citations

685 F.2d 912 (4th Cir. 1982)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Tincher

The order Wilson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral…

United States v. Johnson

An order is not final if it disposes of "fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer…