Case ID: f-appx_499/html/0626-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ST. LOUIS HEART CENTER, INC., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JACKSON & COKER LOCUMTENENS, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-2585.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 15, 2013.
    Filed: Feb. 28, 2013.
    Phillip Andrew Bock, Bock & Hatch, Chicago, IL, Max G. Margulis, Margulis Law Group, Chesterfield, MO, Brian J. Wanca, Anderson & Wanca, Rolling Meadows, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James W. Childress, Scott Kehlenbrink, Childress & Ahlheim, Thomas Michael Ward, Brown & James, St. Louis, MO, Isaac Colunga, Bart T. Murphy, Ice & Miller, Lisle, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. (Heart Center) brought this suit against Jackson & Coker Locumtenens, LLC (Jackson), alleging violations of the Telephone Communications Protection Act. Jackson moved to dismiss, arguing that it had made a full settlement offer to Heart Center, and therefore, although the offer had been rejected, the case was moot. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, as well as Jackson’s ensuing motions for reconsideration and to certify the question for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). This appeal followed, in which Jackson argues that appellate jurisdiction exists under the collateral-order doctrine.

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ appellate submissions, we conclude that the denial of Jackson’s motion to dismiss the case as moot, due to a settlement offer, is not a collateral order. See Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 867-69, 114 S.Ct. 1992, 128 L.Ed.2d 842 (1994) (collateral-order doctrine comprises only district court decisions that are conclusive, resolve important questions completely separate from merits, and would render such important questions effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment; conditions for collateral-order are “stringent” and exception is “narrow”; holding that “right to avoid trial” negotiated in private settlement agreement could be adequately vindicated on appeal from final judgment). As a result, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 
      
      . The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
     
      
      . Jackson also moves to stay the appeal pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in another case. Given our disposition of this appeal, we do not reach Jackson’s motion.