Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30849/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30849-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 

---

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 31, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30849

Summary Calendar

 

BENJAMIN L CRAVEN, On behalf of himself, individually, 

and on behalf of all those similarly situated

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

CANAL BARGE COMPANY, INC

Defendant - Appellee

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 03-CV-536

--------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Benjamin Craven (Craven) sued Canal Barge Co. (Canal)

alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.

§ 201, et seq. (FLSA) and Louisiana law. Canal moved for partial

summary judgment, and the district court dismissed the state-law

claims but not the FLSA claims, which were not the subject of

Canal’s motion. 

 Case: 03-30849 Document: 0051634305 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2004
No.03-30849

-2-

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction sua

sponte if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th

Cir. 1987). The district court’s grant of partial summary

judgment did not dispose of all of the claims and was therefore

not a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Briargrove

Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enters., 170 F.3d 536,

538-39 (5th Cir. 1999); Askenase v. LivingWell, Inc., 981 F.2d

807, 809-10 (5th Cir. 1993). In addition, there is no

certification of finality or appealability under FED. R. CIV.

P. 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Neither the order granting

partial summary judgment nor the district court’s order closing

the case for statistical purposes shows an “unmistakable intent”

to enter an appealable partial judgment under FED. R. CIV.

P. 54(b). See Briargrove, 170 F.3d at 539. Further, FED. R. CIV.

P. 23(f) does not apply.

Because there is no appealable judgment, we lack appellate

jurisdiction, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 Case: 03-30849 Document: 0051634305 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2004