Filed: Apr. 26, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 26, 2017
Summary: SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represent
Summary: SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represente..
More
SUMMARY ORDER
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Defendants-appellants NYG Capital LLC, Benjamin Wey, FNL Media LLC (collectively, "Defendants") appeal the May 10, 2016 amended judgment of the district court, denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial as to liability and granting in part their motion for remittitur as to damage awards.1 On appeal, they argue that we should vacate the district court's judgment and order a new trial on defamation, or alternatively remit the damages awarded to a level more consistent with First Amendment and Due Process requirements, in addition to granting relief on a number of additional alleged errors. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.
We need not reach the merits of this appeal because the amended judgment is not final. The Plaintiff's breach of contract claim remains pending before the district court. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), when any claim for relief is pending before the district court, a judgment is not deemed final unless, with due consideration for the "historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals," Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted), the district court certifies the amended judgment as final, accompanied by an explanation of why there is "no just reason for delay" of appellate review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); see also HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank, 48 F.3d 623, 632 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that order that did not resolve all the claims in the action was interlocutory and was not appealable because there was no Rule 54(b) certification). Here, appropriate certification has neither been sought nor issued. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
