Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Nachman v. San Juan Dupont, 94-1410 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 94-1410 Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 29, 1994
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: December 29, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION], [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT _________________________ Nos. (the Fee Appeals). In other orders anent costs, e.g., Order No., ____ 478;
USCA1 Opinion









December 29, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

_________________________


Nos. 94-1410
94-1441


IN RE: TWO APPEALS ARISING OUT OF THE

SAN JUAN DUPONT PLAZA HOTEL FIRE LITIGATION.

_________________________

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

_________________________

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________

Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________

and Cyr, Circuit Judge. _____________

_________________________

Judith Resnik, with whom Dennis E. Curtis, Richard A. ______________ _________________ ___________
Bieder, and Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C. were on brief, for ______ ________________________________
appellants Bieder, et al.
Jose E. Fernandez-Sein on brief for appellant Nachman. ______________________
Steven C. Lausell, with whom Jimenez, Graffam & Lausell were _________________ __________________________
on brief, for appellee Jimenez, Graffam & Lausell.
Will Kemp, with whom Stanley Chesley, Wendell Gauthier, John _________ _______________ ________________ ____
Cummings, David Indiano and Harrison, Kemp & Jones, Chtd. were on ________ _____________ _____________________________
brief, for remaining appellees.

_________________________



_________________________














Per Curiam. These two appeals were consolidated for Per Curiam. __________

oral argument with a number of other appeals. ("the Fee

Appeals"). Unlike the Fee Appeals, which are concerned primarily

(albeit not exclusively) with a global, end-of-litigation award

of attorneys' fees, these two appeals involve only an order in

respect to costs.1 Moreover, the order appealed from resolves

only one isolated component of the dispute over costs in this

massive litigation. In other orders anent costs, e.g., Order No. ____

478; Order No. 510-A, the district court has limned its preferred

approach for resolving certain other aspects of the overall

inquiry into costs. However, most of the issues relating to

costs remain pending, unresolved, in the court below.

While we have appellate jurisdiction over the global

fee award, see In re Nineteen Appeals, 982 F.2d 603, 608-10 (1st ___ ______________________

Cir. 1992), there is as yet no global costs award. In the

ordinary course, the court of appeals may hear appeals only from

final orders, see 28 U.S.C. 1291, and the orders entered to ___

date in respect to costs are not sufficiently final to qualify

under that rubric.

To be sure, there are exceptions to the finality

principle but none are applicable here. In particular, we

reject appellant's suggestion that the "common fund" exception,

see In re Nineteen Appeals, 982 F.2d at 609, pertains. We think ___ _______________________

that the exception, when other requirements are satisfied,
____________________

1The two appeals in question are both appeals from Order No.
520 (involving the so-called "Foulds' expense"). Neither notice
of appeal raises any other issues.

2












applies to global awards, not to piecemeal interim orders. If

every link in the chain could be appealed separately, chaos would

result.

We need go no further. We dismiss these two appeals,

without prejudice, for want of appellate jurisdiction.2 The

issues raised therein may be raised anew in appeals taken from

the district court's final (global) order in respect to costs

when such an order is entered.



Appeals dismissed. Appeals dismissed. _________________

























____________________

2To the extent that the Fee Appeals attempt to raise claims
related to costs, e.g., Appeal No. 94-1156, which purports to be ____
an appeal from two orders anent costs (No. 478 and No. 510-A), as
well as from the global award of fees, we will, when we release
our opinion covering those cases, dismiss without prejudice the
portions of the appeals relating to the cost orders.

3






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer