Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03398/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03398-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3398

___________

Essex Insurance Company, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

John McManus, doing business as *

Jay Hydraulics & Electric Co., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant, *

*

Internal Revenue Service, *

*

Appellee, *

*

City of St. Louis, *

*

Defendant, *

*

Adjusters Incorporated for the People, *

doing business as Adjusters, Inc., *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 7, 2004

Filed: October 15, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

Appellate Case: 03-3398 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2004 Entry ID: 1822257 
1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-

PER CURIAM.

John McManus (McManus) appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of

summary judgment to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on its claim filed in an

interpleader action brought by Essex Insurance Company. He also has filed motions

requesting to continue his cross-claims against Adjusters Incorporated for the People

(Adjusters) and the IRS, and to supplement the record on appeal.

We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because at the time the district

court granted summary judgment, the cross-claims were pending and the district court

did not rule on them. Thus there was no final judgment from which to take an appeal.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (appellate jurisdiction over final orders); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)

(“order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than

all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not

terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties”); Miller v. Special Weapons,

L.L.C., 369 F.3d 1033, 1034-35 (8th Cir. 2004); Thomas v. Basham, 931 F.2d 521,

522-24 (8th Cir. 1991) (appellate courts have obligation to raise jurisdictional issues

sua sponte “when there is an indication that jurisdiction is lacking”). Given this

disposition, we need not rule on McManus’s pending motions.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3398 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2004 Entry ID: 1822257