Allen v. Okam Holdings, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 96-30972.

Ruth ALLEN, wife of/and, H.T. Allen, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

OKAM HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants,

Gulfside Marine, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

June 27, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.

Before DAVIS, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an interlocutory appeal from the district court's

order dismissing a defendant in a personal injury action for lack

of personal jurisdiction. Because we conclude that we do not have

appellate jurisdiction over this matter, we dismiss the appeal.

I.

Appellants Ruth and H.T. Allen were involved in a recreational

boating accident while operating their vessel in Louisiana

navigable waters. The Allens, who are residents of Mississippi,

filed suit in Louisiana state court against the Alabama vendor of

the vessel, Gulfside Marine, Inc. (Gulfside), the vessel

manufacturer, and a component manufacturer. Gulfside removed the

case to federal district court and filed a motion to dismiss for

lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). The

1
district court granted the motion.

II.

The Allens seek to appeal the district court's interlocutory

order dismissing Gulfside under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3).

Interlocutory appeals are generally disfavored, and statutes

permitting them must be strictly construed. In re Complaint of

Ingram Towing Co., 59 F.3d 513, 515 (5th Cir.1995). Section

1292(a)(3) provides:

(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this
section, the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of
appeals from:

....

(3) Interlocutory decrees of such district courts or the
judges thereof determining the rights and liabilities of
the parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from
final decrees are allowed.

28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) (emphasis added). This court has read §

1292(a)(3) as providing for appellate jurisdiction only where the

order at issue determines the parties' substantive rights and

obligations. Ingram, 59 F.3d at 517. "Orders which do not

determine parties' substantive rights or liabilities, however, are

not appealable under section 1292(a)(3) even if those orders have

important procedural consequences." Id. (emphasis added) (citation

omitted). Consequently, we have refused to hear appeals from

orders granting a preliminary injunction, Treasure Salvors, Inc. v.

Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 640 F.2d 560, 564

(5th Cir.1981), dismissing some, but not all, of the defendants for

2
lack of admiralty jurisdiction, Austracan (U.S.A.), Inc. v. M/V

Lemoncore, 500 F.2d 237, 240 (5th Cir.1974), and dismissing a

counterclaim, Wallin v. Keegan, 426 F.2d 1313, 1314 (5th Cir.1970).

Most notably, in a case factually similar to the one at hand,

this court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from

an order dismissing one of four defendants for lack of personal

jurisdiction because the dismissal did not "fall within the limited

class of interlocutory appeals authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3)

relating to the rights and liabilities of parties in admiralty."

Seahorse Boat & Barge Corp. v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 617

F.2d 396, 397 (5th Cir.1980). We see no reason to reach a

different result here. The district court's dismissal does not

affect the merits of appellants' claim. Nor does it preclude

appellants from commencing and maintaining an independent action

against Gulfside in another forum. Rather, it only affects "how

and where the rights and liabilities would be determined." Ingram,

59 F.3d at 517 (citation omitted). Therefore, the order dismissing

Gulfside for lack of personal jurisdiction did not determine the

parties' substantive rights or liabilities.1

1
We do not read our decision in Underwriters at Interest on
Cover Note JHB92M10582079 v. Nautronix, Ltd., 79 F.3d 480 (5th
Cir.1996), to require a different result. There, this court
allowed an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to
file a third-party complaint. Despite the procedural nature of the
order, it resolved substantive rights and liabilities because it
"effectively dismisse[d] a party from suit, without making
provision for pending compulsory counterclaims." Id. at 484.

3
 III.

Because the district court's order is not appealable under 28

U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3), this appeal is dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.

Appeal DISMISSED.

4