Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02424/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02424-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

United St.at.es Court of Appeals 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth Circuit 

CHRYSLER CREDIT CORPORATION, 

a Delaware Corporation 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

COUNTRY CHRYSLER, INC., an Oklahoma 

corporation; MAX PEPPER; MURIEL S. 

PEPPER; CINDY JOAN PEPPER GUTERMAN, 

v. 

DefendantsCounterclaimantsThird-Party PlaintiffsAppellants, 

CHRYSLER CORPORATION, 

Third-Party Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

FEB 2 41988 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-2424 

(D.C. No. 86-503-B) 

( W. D. Ok la • ) 

Before ~OORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Appellate Case: 87-2424 Document: 010110027794 Date Filed: 02/24/1988 Page: 1 
This is an appeal from the district court's award of damages 

in favor of plaintiff and against defendants. At the time 

defendants' notice of appeal was filed, both a counterclaim 

against plaintiff and a third-party action remained pending. A 

certification necessary for an immediate appeal of the 

interlocutory order was neither sought nor granted in the district 

court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 

It appears from the papers presently before the court that 

the interlocutory order underlying this appeal did not adjudicate 

all the claims or the rights and liabilities of all the parties. 

Accordingly, we conclude that it is premature. While there is 

indication that the district court has transferred the 

counterclaim and third-party action to a different district court, 

it appears that plaintiff's claim for punitive damages remains 

unadjudicated. From this, we conclude that this appeal is 

premature and must be dismissed for lack of appellate 

jurisdiction. See Golden Villa Spa, Inc. v. Health Indus., Inc., 

549 F.2d 1363 (10th Cir. 1977). 

Appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-2424 Document: 010110027794 Date Filed: 02/24/1988 Page: 2