Lloyd I. Hughes v. J. William Sharp
Lloyd I. HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. William SHARP, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
OPINION PER CURIAM:
J. William Sharp appeals from an order of the district court holding him in civil contempt for failure to appear at an examination of judgment debtor in proceedings ancillary to execution of judgment. Sharp was fined the amount of his opponent’s attorney’s fees and costs and ordered confined until he had purged himself of the contempt.
Sharp does not contend at this time that he is not the judgment debtor of Hughes. He does contend that he was not properly brought before the court, and that therefore the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. He also attacks the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction. We express no view on these arguments.
Since Sharp is a party to the pending proceedings, and since those proceedings are still under way, we lack jurisdiction to consider the purported appeal from the district court’s contempt order. That order is interlocutory. See Fox v. Capitol Co., 299 U.S. 105 , 57 S. Ct. 57 , 81 L.Ed. 67 (1936); Western P.R.R. Corp. v. Western P.R.R. Co., 216 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1954); and Hodgson v. Mahoney, 460 F.2d 326 (1st Cir. 1972).
Although this result seems harsh, Hughes was not left without recourse. He can always purge himself of the contempt. Or, he might have moved to quash the process that he now seeks to challenge; and if that motion had been denied, such denial would generally be appealable. Edwin Raphael Co. v. Maharam Fabrics Corp., 283 F.2d 310 (7th Cir. 1960). Finally, he could have sought leave to bring an interlocutory appeal from the contempt order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b).
Notice of appeal was filed on August 4, 1971. The brief for Hughes was filed on April 7, 1972. In that brief *976 Hughes raises the issue of this court’s jurisdiction. The proper course when counsel for Hughes discovered the defect in our jurisdiction was to file a motion to dismiss the appeal. The result of failure to make such a motion has been substantial unnecessary delay in disposition of this cause.
The appeal is dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 15 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants
- Will Stone v. City And County Of San Francisco
- International Business Machines Corp. v. United States
- Darmetko v. Boston Housing Authority
- Stone v. City & County of San Francisco
- Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of U.S. Department of Labor v. Joseph P. Mazzola, Robert E. Buckley, Robert J. Costello, Etc.
Most recent
- Anderson v. Big Apple Consulting, USA, Inc.
- American Express Bank, Ltd. -Counter- v. Mohammed Hassan Haeri Foumani -Counter-
- Stone v. City & County of San Francisco
- Will Stone v. City And County Of San Francisco
- Stone v. City & County of San Francisco
- Richmark Corp., a California Corporation v. Timber Falling Consultants, an Oregon Corporation, Timber Falling Consultants, an Oregon Corporation, Counterclaim v. Richmark Corp., a California Corporation, Peacock Mfg. Co., a Texas Corporation, Zhu Yuanchang, Eugene Wang, James Yang, and Francis Tong, Counterclaim and Beijing Ever Bright Industrial Co., a Foreign Corporation, Counterclaim
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.