Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02241/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02241-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

PI LED 

Uoited Scates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JUL 111990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

IN THE MATTER OF AMAREX, INC., 

Debtor. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

----------------------------------------) 

AMAREX, INC., et al., 

v. 

Plaintiffs-Appellees/CrossAppellants, 

AZTEC SPECIALTY LEASING, INC.; and 

UNION TEXAS PETROLEUM, et al., 

Defendants-Appellants/CrossAppellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) Nos. 88-2241 

) 88-2367 

)(D.C. Nos. CIV-87-1807-W) 

) (CIV-87-1780-W) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

----------------------------------------) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, SETH, and MCWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. 

This is an interlocutory appeal from the order of the 

bankruptcy court, as affirmed by the district court, settling 

various common issues in consolidated adversary proceedings. 

After oral argument we requested supplemental briefing on the 

issue of appellate jurisdiction. We dismiss for lack of appellate 

jurisdiction. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2241 Document: 010110038273 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 1 
The appellants advance two theories to support appellate 

jurisdiction. The first theory is that the district court's order 

finally "determines" the fate of the consolidated case, even 

though each individual case will proceed. This contention is 

meritless. The individual adversary proceedings are the only 

"cases" before us, albeit consolidated. Because the district 

court's order is not final for any of these cases, see Adelman v. 

Fourth Nat'l Bank (In re Durability, Inc.), 893 F.2d 264 (10th 

Cir. 1990); Homa Ltd. v. Stone (In re Commercial Contractors, 

Inc,.), 771 F.2d 1373 (10th Cir. 1985), we do not have appellate 

jurisdiction. 

Appellants second contention is that the district court's 

order falls within the collateral order exception of Cohen v. 

Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). We 

disagree. In order to be appealable under Cohen, the order must 

be both "collateral to and separable from the merits" and be 

effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment. 

Neither of these criteria are satisfied. The questions raised all 

relate to the merits and are of a type commonly reviewed after 

appeal. Cohen does not apply. The order is not appealable. 

Finally, appellants ask us to defer ruling on this case 

pending Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) action by the district court, see 

Durability, 893 F.2d 264. We decline this invitation. Rule 54(b) 

permits partial final judgments only on claims, not issues. The 

Rule's applicability is not readily apparent. If appellants do 

not wish to proceed with litigating all of the consolidated cases 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2241 Document: 010110038273 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 2 
in the absence of court of appeals' review, they may elect to 

pursue a test case. 

We have no appellate jurisdiction over this case. 

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

3 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2241 Document: 010110038273 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 3