Golden Villa Spa, Inc., a Utah Corporation v. Health Industries, Inc.
GOLDEN VILLA SPA, INC., a Utah Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HEALTH INDUSTRIES, INC., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Golden Villa Spa, Inc., (Golden Villa) appeals a summary judgment, no *1364 cause of action, entered by the district court for the Central District of Utah in favor of one of the named defendants, Spa Fitness Center (Fitness Center). Golden Villa’s claims against the other named defendants remain unadjudicated in the trial court.
On appeal the parties have addressed themselves solely to the merits of the case and the appealability of the trial court’s order of summary judgment has not been raised. Nevertheless, the jurisdiction of a court of appeals is limited by statute to review of “final decisions” of the district courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Where the issue of appellate jurisdiction is not raised by the parties the court may consider the issue of its own motion.
Baca Land & Cattle Co. v. New Mexico Timber, Inc., 10 Cir., 384 F.2d 701, 702 .
In the present case the “finality” of the district court’s decision is controlled by rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., which provides that in cases involving multiple claims or multiple parties “the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.”
(emphasis added). No such determination or certification was made by the district court in connection with its entry of summary judgment in favor of Fitness Center and not the other named defendants. In such cases the rule expressly provides:
In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.
The effect of this rule is that the summary judgment entered by the district court remains subject to revision.
Appeal dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Robert Lewis v. B.F. Goodrich Company Daniel Newsome Roy Ailstock
- Perington Wholesale, Inc. v. Burger King Corporation, Davmor Industries, Inc., and Carpenter Paper Co.
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. A. L. Scholes
- Robert M. McKinney v. Gannett Co., Inc., and the New Mexican, Inc.
- Lamp v. Andrus
- United States of America, and Conrad Carson, Revenue Officer, Internal Revenue Service v. Glenn O. Young
Most recent
- Robert Lewis v. B.F. Goodrich Company Daniel Newsome Roy Ailstock
- Bode v. Clark Equipment Company
- Robert M. McKinney v. Gannett Co., Inc., and the New Mexican, Inc.
- Lamp v. Andrus
- United States of America, and Conrad Carson, Revenue Officer, Internal Revenue Service v. Glenn O. Young
- Perington Wholesale, Inc. v. Burger King Corporation, Davmor Industries, Inc., and Carpenter Paper Co.
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.