From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamman v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 22, 1968
399 F.2d 673 (9th Cir. 1968)


Nos. 21986, 21986-A, 21986-B.

August 22, 1968.

Harry M. Philo (argued), Muskegon, Mich., Lee Overfelt, Billings, Mont., J.H. McAlear, Red Lodge, Mont., Philo, Maki, Moore, Pitts, Ravitz, Glotta, Cockrell Robb, Detroit, Mich., for appellants.

Robert E. Burns (argued), of Crimmins, Kent, Bradley Burns, San Francisco, Cal., Weymouth D. Symmes of Anderson, Symmes, Forbes, Peete Brown; Cooke, Moulton, Bellingham, Longo Mather, Billings, Mont., Moody Brickett, U.S. Atty., Butte, Mont., for appellees.

Before BARNES and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, andBOWEN, District Judge.

Hon. John C. Bowen, Senior United States District Judge, Seattle, Washington, sitting by designation.

Three cases are before this court, consolidated on appeal, from a summary judgment dismissing Count III of plaintiffs' respective Third Amended Complaints, for failure to state a cause of action under the Clayton Act. ( 15 U.S.C. § 15.)

The document dismissing the Third Cause of Action in the Third Amended Complaint was "with prejudice and on the merits," (C.T. 73). It was denominated "Partial Judgment." By its terms, both in its title and body, it was not "a final decision." ( 28 U.S.C. § 1291.) No statement that the order involved a controlling question of law was stated in such order. ( 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b).) It is not an order falling within § 1292(a). Cf. Rule 54(b), Fed. R.Civ.P. We therefore are compelled to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. CMAX, Inc. v. Drewry Photocolor Co., 295 F.2d 695 (9th Cir. 1962); King v. California Co., 236 F.2d 413 (5th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 1007, 77 S.Ct. 569, 1 L. Ed.2d 551 (1967) District 65 v. McKague, 216 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1954).

A dismissal of a cause of action as to certain defendants only is not appealable in absence of express determination of the trial court that there was no just reason for delay. Steiner v. 20th Cent.-Fox Film Corp., 220 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1955); Miles v. City of Chandler, 297 F.2d 690 (9th Cir. 1961); Perry v. Bammar, 330 F.2d 240 (9th Cir. 1964); Baca Land Cattle Co. v. New Mexico Timber, Inc., 384 F.2d 701 (10th Cir. 1967).

The trial court cannot by certificate make final and appealable a ruling which is not final and appealable under § 1291. Sears Roebuck Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 at 437, 76 S.Ct. 895, 100 L.Ed. 1297 (1956).

Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Summaries of

Hamman v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 22, 1968
399 F.2d 673 (9th Cir. 1968)
Case details for

Hamman v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Elsie HAMMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America and Washington Iron…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 22, 1968


399 F.2d 673 (9th Cir. 1968)

Citing Cases

Weinberg v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc.

See, e.g., Roseland v. Phister Mfg. Co., 125 F.2d 417 (CA7 1942); Hamman v. United States, 267 F. Supp. 420…

Stephenson v. Calpine Conifers II, Ltd.

While we cannot dismiss the appeal as untimely, we must dismiss it to the extent it is from relief granted in…