Capitol House v. Perryman Consult

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-30660 CAPITOL HOUSE PRESERVATION COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus PERRYMAN CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED; M RAY PERRYMAN, Doctor; XYZ INSURANCE; TUV INSURANCE; JAZZ ENTERPRISES, INC.; STEVE URIE; MARGARET URIE; MARK BRADLEY; RONALD JOHNSON; MARILYN J. JOHNSON; LODGING SYSTEMS, INC.; CATFISH QUEEN PARTNERSHIP IN COMMENDAM; CPA ACCOUNTING FIRM; ARGOSY OF LOUISIANA, INC.; ARGOSY GAMING CO.; PAULA BRADLEY, Defendants-Appellees. ------------------------------- CAPITOL HOUSE PRESERVATION COMPANY, LLC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JAZZ ENTERPRISES, INC.; STEVE URIE; MARGARET URIE; MARK BRADLEY; RONALD JOHNSON; MARILYN J. JOHNSON; LODGING SYSTEMS, INC.; CPA ACCOUNTING FIRM; XYZ INSURANCE CO.; CATFISH QUEEN PARTNERSHIP IN COMMENDAM; ARGOSY OF LOUISIANA, INC.; ARGOSY GAMING CO.; PAULA BRADLEY, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge (95-CV-725-B-M2) March 11, 1997 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.* PER CURIAM: Under Quackenbush v. Allstate, 116 S.Ct. 1712 (1996)——which the district court did not have the benefit of——dismissal was not proper. Appellees have also agreed that developments since the district court’s decision, including two of the state cases becoming final, have rendered further stay inappropriate. Accordingly, the judgment is vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. VACATED and REMANDED * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. 2