Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

John Michael Gravitt, Bringing This Action on Behalf of the United States Government, Cross-Appellant v. General Electric Company, Cross-Appellee, 88-3171 (1988)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Number: 88-3171 Visitors: 4
Filed: May 03, 1988
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 848 F.2d 190 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. John Michael GRAVITT, Bringing This Action on Behalf of The UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. Cross-Appellee. Nos. 88-3171, 88-326
More

848 F.2d 190

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
John Michael GRAVITT, Bringing This Action on Behalf of The
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Cross-Appellant,
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 88-3171, 88-3264.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 3, 1988.

Before MERRITT and BOGGS, Circuit Judges, and JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

1

The United States ("the government") and General Electric (G.E.) filed separate notices of appeal in this defense contractor fraud action from the district court's order dated January 22, 1988. That order refused to adopt the report and recommendation of the Magistrate which recommended acceptance of a proposed settlement agreement. The Qui tam plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss both appeals. The government and G.E. oppose that motion.

2

The basis for the motion to dismiss is that the order appealed from is not final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. The refusal to adopt a settlement agreement is an interlocutory order which is neither a "collateral" order under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, nor is it an interlocutory order "refusing" and "injunction" under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(1). Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981). See E.E.O.C. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 796 F.2d 315, 318 n. 7 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam) cert. denied 107 S. Ct. 874 (1987); see also United States v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 804 F.2d 348 (6th Cir.1986).

3

It is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be granted as to both appeals 88-3171 and 88-3264.

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