Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local No. 110 Pension Trust Fund v. Dane Sheet Metal, Inc., 89-5094 (1989)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Number: 89-5094 Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 18, 1989
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 887 F.2d 1087 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION LOCAL NO. 110 PENSION TRUST FUND, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DANE SHEET METAL, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 89-5094. United States Court of Appe
More

887 F.2d 1087

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION LOCAL NO. 110
PENSION TRUST FUND, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
DANE SHEET METAL, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 89-5094.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 18, 1989.

Before KEITH, MILBURN and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

A review of the documents before the court reveals that defendants appealed from the district court's entry of partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs.

2

This court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Absent a Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification, an order disposing of fewer than all the claims or parties involved in the action is not appealable. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 742-45 (1976); Solomon v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 782 F.2d 58, 69-60 (6th Cir.1986). No Rule 54(b) certification was made in the instant case. The final decision of the district court has not been entered during the pendency of this appeal; therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction. See Gillis v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Serv., 759 F.2d 565, 568-69 (6th Cir.1985).

3

IT IS ORDERED that the appeal be, and it hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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