Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01038/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01038-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 03-1038/03-1419

___________

United States of America, ex rel. *

Magnolia City Hospital, *

*

Plaintiff/Cross Appellee, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Medical Business Associates, L.L.C.; *

Harold Evans; Greg Evans; Bunker * [UNPUBLISHED]

Hill, L.L.C.; *

*

Defendants - Appellants/ *

Cross Appellees, *

*

Magnolia City Hospital, *

*

Defendant - Appellee/ *

Cross Appellant, *

*

----------------------------------------------- *

*

Magnolia City Hospital, *

*

Third Party Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

Dallas A. Riley; Ken Peebles; Bob *

Prickett; W. J. Poss, *

*

Third Party Defendants. *

Appellate Case: 03-1038 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2004 Entry ID: 1794422 
1

The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

-2-

___________

Submitted: July 30, 2004 

Filed: August 2, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Harold Evans, Greg Evans, and Bunker Hill,

LLC (appellants) appeal the district court’s1

 order assessing costs and concluding

Magnolia City Hospital (Magnolia) was entitled to attorney’s fees. Magnolia crossappeals the district court’s order concluding it lacked jurisdiction to rule on motions

during the pendency of appellants’ appeal. As appellants have acknowledged in their

brief, this appeal is premature because the order appealed did not award an amount

of attorney’s fees and thus was not final. Accordingly, we dismiss appellants’ appeal

for lack of jurisdiction. 

Because the district court’s order concluding it lacked jurisdiction during the

appeal will be mooted by our dismissal of appellants’ appeal, we dismiss Magnolia’s

cross-appeal as moot. We also deny as moot Magnolia’s pending motion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1038 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2004 Entry ID: 1794422