Matthew L. Hubbard v. Monsanto Company, Inc., Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. And Consolidated Cases

D.C. Circuit

Matthew L. Hubbard v. Monsanto Company, Inc., Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. And Consolidated Cases

904 F.2d 47, 284 U.S. App. D.C. 227, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 21703, 1990 WL 72521

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 5, 1990

Docket89-7166

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 904 F.2d 47 (Matthew L. Hubbard v. Monsanto Company, Inc., Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. And Consolidated Cases) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matthew L. Hubbard v. Monsanto Company, Inc., Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. And Consolidated Cases, 904 F.2d 47, 284 U.S. App. D.C. 227, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 21703, 1990 WL 72521 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motions to dismiss, the responses thereto and the reply and Monsanto’s motion for leave to file a surreply, it is

ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a surreply be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction be granted. Claims in this civil action remain pending before the district court, and that court has entered no final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Therefore, the district court’s order filed June 9, 1989, “[does] not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), and hence is not reviewable on appeal at this juncture. See Brookens v. White, 795 F.2d 178, 179 (D.C.Cir.1986). We note, however, that if this case is remanded to state court, then the June 9,1989 order will be immediately reviewable as a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Waco v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 293 U.S. 140, 143, 55 S.Ct. 6, 7, 79 L.Ed. 244 (1934).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir. Rule 15.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motions to dismiss, the responses thereto and the reply and Monsanto’s motion for leave to file a surreply, it is

ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a surreply be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction be granted. Claims in this civil action remain pending before the district court, and that court has entered no final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Therefore, the district court’s order filed June 9, 1989, “[does] not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), and hence is not reviewable on appeal at this juncture. See Brookens v. White, 795 F.2d 178, 179 (D.C.Cir.1986). We note, however, that if this case is remanded to state court, then the June 9,1989 order will be immediately reviewable as a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Waco v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 293 U.S. 140, 143, 55 S.Ct. 6, 7, 79 L.Ed. 244 (1934).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir. Rule 15.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

904 F.2d 47, 284 U.S. App. D.C. 227, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 21703, 1990 WL 72521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthew-l-hubbard-v-monsanto-company-inc-washington-metropolitan-area-cadc-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack