Originally published by David Coale.
- The Court did not accept the district court’s certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), as “the claim for relief is the wrongful death and survival cause of action brought by [Plaintiff] . . . [t]he Rule 11 sanctions and referral to the disciplinary committee with findings of . . . misconduct are not claims for relief in this suit”;
- The district court’s Rule 54 order did not contain a certification about “a legal issue that satisfies the substantive requirements of § 1292(b),” and thus could not be treated as an appealable interlocutory order;
- The sanctions ruling was not a “collateral order,” as it is “reviewable after the district court makes its determinations of liability on the merits . . . .”; and
- A potentially-viable doctrine about the appeal of sanctions orders, combined with an attorney’s withdrawal, did not apply because the relevant counsel remained in the case
Nogess v. Poydras Center LLC, No. 17-30449 (April 3, 2018).
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2Hp4azV
via Abogado Aly Website
No comments:
Post a Comment