Ferdie Meche v. Dan-Tex International, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

Ferdie Meche v. Dan-Tex International, Inc.

681 F.2d 264, 34 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 675, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 17380

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 16, 1982

Docket82-3382

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 681 F.2d 264 (Ferdie Meche v. Dan-Tex International, Inc.) 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

Ferdie Meche v. Dan-Tex International, Inc., 681 F.2d 264, 34 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 675, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 17380 (5th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT:

Appellant Meche seeks to appeal an interlocutory award of fees and expenses made pursuant to Rule 30(g)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 Meche concedes the order is interlocutory but claims it is nevertheless appealable under the rule of Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). We agree with our brethren of the Ninth Circuit, however, that Cohen appeals may not be taken from orders that “effectively may be reviewed and corrected if and when final judgment results.” Johnny Pflocks, Inc. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 634 F.2d 1215, 1216 (1980) (quoting from 337 U.S. at 546, 69 S.Ct. at 1225). This, like the Rule 37(a)(4) order in Pflocks, is such an order.

IT IS ORDERED that the motion of ap-pellees to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED.

1

. Permitting such awards where a party, in person or by counsel, attends a noticed deposition but the witness, for want of having been subpoenaed, does not.

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

BY THE COURT:

Appellant Meche seeks to appeal an interlocutory award of fees and expenses made pursuant to Rule 30(g)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 Meche concedes the order is interlocutory but claims it is nevertheless appealable under the rule of Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). We agree with our brethren of the Ninth Circuit, however, that Cohen appeals may not be taken from orders that “effectively may be reviewed and corrected if and when final judgment results.” Johnny Pflocks, Inc. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 634 F.2d 1215, 1216 (1980) (quoting from 337 U.S. at 546, 69 S.Ct. at 1225). This, like the Rule 37(a)(4) order in Pflocks, is such an order.

IT IS ORDERED that the motion of ap-pellees to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED.

1

. Permitting such awards where a party, in person or by counsel, attends a noticed deposition but the witness, for want of having been subpoenaed, does not.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

681 F.2d 264, 34 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 675, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 17380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferdie-meche-v-dan-tex-international-inc-ca5-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack