Filed: Aug. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-30856 Summary Calendar GOLD, WEEMS, BRUSER, SUES & RUNDELL, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, VERSUS METAL SALES MANUFACTURING CORP., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (96-CV-2653) August 26, 1999 Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Metal Sales appeals the district court’s grant of Gold, Weems’ motion for partial summary j
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-30856 Summary Calendar GOLD, WEEMS, BRUSER, SUES & RUNDELL, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, VERSUS METAL SALES MANUFACTURING CORP., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (96-CV-2653) August 26, 1999 Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Metal Sales appeals the district court’s grant of Gold, Weems’ motion for partial summary ju..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30856
Summary Calendar
GOLD, WEEMS, BRUSER, SUES & RUNDELL,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,
VERSUS
METAL SALES MANUFACTURING CORP.,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(96-CV-2653)
August 26, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Metal Sales appeals the district court’s grant of Gold, Weems’
motion for partial summary judgment on the open account and the
district court’s grant of partial summary judgment on Metal Sales’
counterclaim alleging malpractice for failure to file a cross-
appeal. Initially, we note that this Court has jurisdiction to
hear this appeal even though a claim for attorneys’ fees is still
pending. See Budinich v. Becton Dickinson Co.,
486 U.S. 196
(1988); Federal Savings and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Kroenke, 858 F.2d
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1
1067, 1069 (5th Cir. 1988).
We have reviewed the record excerpts and the briefs of the
parties and affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the
district court.
AFFIRMED.
2