Bache & Co., Inc. v. William J. Taylor, Jr.

Fifth Circuit

Bache & Co., Inc. v. William J. Taylor, Jr.

458 F.2d 395

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 9, 1972

Docket71-2533

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 458 F.2d 395 (Bache & Co., Inc. v. William J. Taylor, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bache & Co., Inc. v. William J. Taylor, Jr., 458 F.2d 395 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff, BACHE & CO., instituted this action in June of 1970 in a federal district court in Miami, Florida, against defendants, William J. Taylor, Jr., C. Sue Burnstein, and Kenneth Burn-stein, seeking recovery upon a promissory note and compensatory and punitive damages for common law fraud and for alleged violations of federal and state securities fraud statutes. Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court entered default judgments against all of the defendants because of their willful disobedience of the district court’s orders. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against all of the defendants in all respects, except that the trial of the cause was continued to determine the amount of compensatory and punitive damages to be assessed against the defendants. After the default judgment was entered, the defendants appealed therefrom. Since the trial judge made no determination in compliance with F.R.Civ.P. 54(b), we must dismiss the appeal on the basis that the default judgments entered against the defendants are subject to alteration by the lower court *396 until it disposes of all the claims against all of the parties. See Benada Aluminum Products Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 5 Cir. 1966, 368 F.2d 1001.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff, BACHE & CO., instituted this action in June of 1970 in a federal district court in Miami, Florida, against defendants, William J. Taylor, Jr., C. Sue Burnstein, and Kenneth Burn-stein, seeking recovery upon a promissory note and compensatory and punitive damages for common law fraud and for alleged violations of federal and state securities fraud statutes. Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court entered default judgments against all of the defendants because of their willful disobedience of the district court’s orders. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against all of the defendants in all respects, except that the trial of the cause was continued to determine the amount of compensatory and punitive damages to be assessed against the defendants. After the default judgment was entered, the defendants appealed therefrom. Since the trial judge made no determination in compliance with F.R.Civ.P. 54(b), we must dismiss the appeal on the basis that the default judgments entered against the defendants are subject to alteration by the lower court *396 until it disposes of all the claims against all of the parties. See Benada Aluminum Products Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 5 Cir. 1966, 368 F.2d 1001.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 F.2d 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bache-co-inc-v-william-j-taylor-jr-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack