Manning v. Fort Deposit Bank

Third Circuit

Manning v. Fort Deposit Bank

798 F.2d 470, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 37385, 1986 WL 16042

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 13, 1986

Docket85-6027

StatusUnpublished

This text of 798 F.2d 470 (Manning v. Fort Deposit Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Manning v. Fort Deposit Bank, 798 F.2d 470, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 37385, 1986 WL 16042 (3d Cir. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

798 F.2d 470

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
J. Frank MANNING, an Individual, Suing on Behalf and on
Behalf of all Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
v.
FORT DEPOSIT BANK, a Corporation, Defendant-and Third Party
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WARING, COX, JAMES, SKLAR, AND ALLEN, a Partnership Composed
of Allen Cox, Jr., Roane Waring, Jr., Erich William James,
Robert Lee Cox, Jerald H. Sklar, Lewis F. Allen, and Roger
D. Fish, as General Partners, Third Party Defendants-Appellants.

No. 85-6027.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 13, 1986.

Before MARTIN, GUY and BOGGS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon consideration of the motion of Fort Deposit Bank to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 8(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Waring, Cox, James, Sklar and Allen appeals, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, an order disqualifying its counsel from further participation in the district court due to a conflict of interests. A response to the motion to dismiss has been received from Waring, Cox, James, Sklar and Allen.

An order disqualifying counsel is not a "final decision" subject to immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 2757, 86 L.Ed.2d 340 (1985); Kuster v. Block, 773 F.2d 1048 (9th Cir.1985); American Protection Insurance Company v. MGM Grand Hotel-Las Vegas, Inc., 765 F.2d 925 (9th Cir.1985). Neither does such an order come within the "collateral order" exception to the final judgment rule. Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, supra; see Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). This Court is therefore without jurisdiction to entertain the merits of this appeal.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the appellees' motion be granted and the appeal be and it is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

798 F.2d 470

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.
J. Frank MANNING, an Individual, Suing on Behalf and on
Behalf of all Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
v.
FORT DEPOSIT BANK, a Corporation, Defendant-and Third Party
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WARING, COX, JAMES, SKLAR, AND ALLEN, a Partnership Composed
of Allen Cox, Jr., Roane Waring, Jr., Erich William James,
Robert Lee Cox, Jerald H. Sklar, Lewis F. Allen, and Roger
D. Fish, as General Partners, Third Party Defendants-Appellants.

No. 85-6027.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 13, 1986.

Before MARTIN, GUY and BOGGS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon consideration of the motion of Fort Deposit Bank to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 8(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Waring, Cox, James, Sklar and Allen appeals, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, an order disqualifying its counsel from further participation in the district court due to a conflict of interests. A response to the motion to dismiss has been received from Waring, Cox, James, Sklar and Allen.

An order disqualifying counsel is not a "final decision" subject to immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 2757, 86 L.Ed.2d 340 (1985); Kuster v. Block, 773 F.2d 1048 (9th Cir.1985); American Protection Insurance Company v. MGM Grand Hotel-Las Vegas, Inc., 765 F.2d 925 (9th Cir.1985). Neither does such an order come within the "collateral order" exception to the final judgment rule. Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, supra; see Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). This Court is therefore without jurisdiction to entertain the merits of this appeal.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the appellees' motion be granted and the appeal be and it is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

798 F.2d 470, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 37385, 1986 WL 16042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manning-v-fort-deposit-bank-ca3-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack