Sabinsa Corp. v. Herbakraft, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedOctober 20, 2023
Docket23-2002
StatusUnpublished

This text of Sabinsa Corp. v. Herbakraft, Inc. (Sabinsa Corp. v. Herbakraft, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sabinsa Corp. v. Herbakraft, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2023).

Opinion

Case: 23-2002 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 10/20/2023

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SABINSA CORP., Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HERBAKRAFT, INC., Defendant

PRAKRUTI PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., Defendant-Appellant ______________________

2023-2002 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in No. 1:14-cv-04738-RBK-SAK, Senior Judge Robert B. Kugler. ______________________

Before DYK, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Following this court’s show cause order directing the parties to address whether this appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, we dismiss. The district court sanctioned Prakruti Products PVT. Ltd. (“Prakruti”) for discovery misconduct. The court Case: 23-2002 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 10/20/2023

thereafter held Prakruti in “civil contempt” for failing to comply with the sanctions order, directed the clerk of court to enter default, and scheduled briefing on default judg- ment. Prakruti filed this appeal, even though the motion for default judgment remains pending. In general, we only have jurisdiction to review a “final decision” from district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1)—one that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). Here, Prakruti does not appeal from such a decision. “[C]ivil contempt or- ders [against parties] are not final judgments, even when a fine is assessed,” Entegris, Inc. v. Pall Corp., 490 F.3d 1340, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and “the entry of default is an ‘interlocutory act and, as such, a non-final order.’” City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 128 n.15 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

October 20, 2023 /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Date Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court

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

Related

Catlin v. United States
324 U.S. 229 (Supreme Court, 1945)
City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC
645 F.3d 114 (Second Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sabinsa Corp. v. Herbakraft, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sabinsa-corp-v-herbakraft-inc-cafc-2023.