SEAHORSE BOAT & BARGE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
JACKSONVILLE SHIPYARDS, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION ET AL., DEFENDANTS

5th Cir. | 1980-05-19
No. 77-3501
617 F.2d 396 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1980) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

In this suit involving the purchase of a boat by a Louisiana resident from a Florida boatbuilder, plaintiffs claimed subject matter jurisdiction under diversity and admiralty jurisdiction. Jacksonville Shipyards was one of four parties named as defendants to the action. The district court granted Jacksonville Shipyards’ motion to dismiss the suit as to itself due to lack of personal jurisdiction, but did not certify the question to this Court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).

In a case involving multiple parties, dismissal of one party is not appealable absent a certification by the district court that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Cason v. Owen, 578 F. 2d 572, 574 (5th Cir. 1978). Nor does the dismissal fall within the limited class of interlocutory appeals authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) relating to the rights and liabilities of parties in admiralty. See Austracan (U.S.A.), Inc. v. M/V LEMONCORE, 500 F. 2d 237, 240-41 (5th Cir. 1974).

Therefore, we dismiss Seahorse Boat & Barge Corporation’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Appeal DISMISSED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • SEA Lane Bahamas Ltd. v. Europa Cruises Corp., 188 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 1999)
  • Boudeloche v. Tnemec Co., Inc., 693 F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1982)
  • Taylor v. The MultiPlan Network (M.D. Fla. 2022)
    …ough they 3 Notably, there has been no entry of judgment—or request for entry of judgment—as to the claims against MPH and Polaris under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See, e.g., Seahorse Boat & Barge Corp. v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 617 F. 2d 396, 397 (5th Cir. 1980). complain that the time permitted to file a second amended complaint was insufficient (Doc. 74 at 17; Doc. 75 at 9-10), they filed their motion for leave to appeal more than fourteen days prior to the deadline and, prior to fil…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw