Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re Bromley-Heath Modernization Committee, 448 F.2d 1271, 1st Cir. (1971)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    The plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus from the appellate court to order the district court to enter a partial final judgment dismissing certain claims, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the appellate court denied the request, finding that the plaintiffs did not meet the heavy burden required to obtain such extraordinary relief. The appellate court noted that Rule 54(b) was intended to allow the district court discretion to determine whether a dismissal was sufficiently final, not to encourage piecemeal appeals. In this case, there remained a possible relationship between the dismissed and retained claims such that the district court may have wanted to reconsider its ruling later in the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1971-09-22 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 448 F.2d 1271 Docket: 71-1279_1

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus from the appellate court to order the district court to enter a partial final judgment dismissing certain claims, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the appellate court denied the request, finding that the plaintiffs did not meet the heavy burden required to obtain such extraordinary relief. The appellate court noted that Rule 54(b) was intended to allow the district court discretion to determine whether a dismissal was sufficiently final, not to encourage piecemeal appeals. In this case, there remained a possible relationship between the dismissed and retained claims such that the district court may have wanted to reconsider its ruling later in the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    10 views2 pages

    In Re Bromley-Heath Modernization Committee, 448 F.2d 1271, 1st Cir. (1971)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus from the appellate court to order the district court to enter a partial final judgment dismissing certain claims, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the appellate court denied the request, finding that the plaintiffs did not meet the heavy burden required to obtain such extraordinary relief. The appellate court noted that Rule 54(b) was intended to allow the district court discretion to determine whether a dismissal was sufficiently final, not to encourage piecemeal appeals. In this case, there remained a possible relationship between the dismissed and retained claims such that the district court may have wanted to reconsider its ruling later in the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    448 F.

    2d 1271

    In re BROMLEY-HEATH MODERNIZATION
    COMMITTEE et al., Petitioners.
    No. 71-1279 Original.

    United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.


    September 22, 1971.

    Marshall D. Stein, with whom Michael Feldman, Boston, Mass., was on


    petition and memorandum in support thereof.
    George F. Mahoney, Boston, Mass., for Boston Housing Authority.
    Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus to order the district court, which has refused
    to do so, to enter a partial final judgment with respect to its order dismissing
    certain of their claims, pursuant to the discretionary powers afforded to it under
    F.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Plaintiffs offer no case where this has been done. Nor do they
    meet successfully the heavy burden, Will v. United States, 1967, 389 U.S. 90,
    95-96, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305, that lies upon them to obtain such
    extraordinary relief.

    Prior to Rule 54(b) there was no right of appeal in the situation where the
    district court disposed of part, but not all, of a case. See Committee Note to
    1946 Amendment. It seems to us clear that the intent of the rule was to reserve
    initially to the district court the right to determine whether it was satisfied in its
    mind that a dismissal of part of a case was "final," and not to create a greater
    right of appeal. Clearly the purpose of the rule is not to encourage broadly
    piecemeal appeals just because an appellant may be in a hurry.

    In the present case there is some very possible relationship between the counts
    which have been presently dismissed and those which are, to date, retained for
    trial. It is possible that one of the reasons motivating the district court to refuse
    to make its order final was a recognition that at some later date it might see

    occasion to change its mind. Even if, however, the court merely felt that one
    appeal in the entire case would be more desirable than two, plaintiffs fall far
    short of presenting a compelling reason for warranting our interference with
    that judgment.
    4

    Petition dismissed.

    You might also like