Banana Distributors, Inc. v. John A. Werner

Second Circuit

Banana Distributors, Inc. v. John A. Werner

275 F.2d 458, 3 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 841, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5278, 1960 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,627

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 26, 1960

Docket183, Docket 25368

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 F.2d 458 (Banana Distributors, Inc. v. John A. Werner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Banana Distributors, Inc. v. John A. Werner, 275 F.2d 458, 3 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 841, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5278, 1960 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,627 (2d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Banana Distributors, Inc., brought this action for treble damages under the anti-trust laws against United Fruit Company, Fruit Dispatch Company and John A. Werner, President of Dispatch, and Director of United. At the end of the plaintiff’s case the action against defendant Werner was dismissed. The trial then continued terminating in a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. This appeal is, however, only concerned with the dismissal as to defendant Werner. This judgment of dismissal contained a statement, such as is provided for in amended Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., that there was no just reason for delay and that judgment be entered in favor of defendant Werner.

In Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 2 Cir., 1959, 273 F.2d 729, 731, rehearing denied in opinion filed on January 18, 1960, this Court held that Rule 54(b) did not allow such a finding of finality as is required for an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 in *459 a case “where a single claim against multiple parties is dismissed as against some but not all.” A thorough scrutiny of the complaint in this case reveals no separate claim as to defendant Werner. In an attempt to avoid the impact of the Goldlawr opinion, supra, the appellants have contended that this case is distinguishable because here a different and longer statute of limitations may apply to defendant Werner than to the other defendants. However this is a matter of defense that does not change the fact that there are no separate claims against Werner. Therefore we must dismiss the appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Banana Distributors, Inc., brought this action for treble damages under the anti-trust laws against United Fruit Company, Fruit Dispatch Company and John A. Werner, President of Dispatch, and Director of United. At the end of the plaintiff’s case the action against defendant Werner was dismissed. The trial then continued terminating in a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. This appeal is, however, only concerned with the dismissal as to defendant Werner. This judgment of dismissal contained a statement, such as is provided for in amended Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., that there was no just reason for delay and that judgment be entered in favor of defendant Werner.

In Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 2 Cir., 1959, 273 F.2d 729, 731, rehearing denied in opinion filed on January 18, 1960, this Court held that Rule 54(b) did not allow such a finding of finality as is required for an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 in *459 a case “where a single claim against multiple parties is dismissed as against some but not all.” A thorough scrutiny of the complaint in this case reveals no separate claim as to defendant Werner. In an attempt to avoid the impact of the Goldlawr opinion, supra, the appellants have contended that this case is distinguishable because here a different and longer statute of limitations may apply to defendant Werner than to the other defendants. However this is a matter of defense that does not change the fact that there are no separate claims against Werner. Therefore we must dismiss the appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 F.2d 458, 3 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 841, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5278, 1960 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banana-distributors-inc-v-john-a-werner-ca2-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack