Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02358/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02358-0/pdf.json

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

---

; . 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

Unitcd &alft wurr of Appeals Tenth CJ,cuit 

SANDY GOLGART, an individual; 

SANDY GOLGART SALES, a California 

corporation, 

v. 

Plaintiffscounter-claim-defendantsAppellants, 

CENTRAL PLASTICS COMPANY, 

an Oklahoma corporation, 

Defendantcounter-claimantAppellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

FEB 2 a 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-2358 

(D.C. No. 86-2026-W) 

( W. D. Ok la . ) 

Before MOORE 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 

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order of the district 

court granting defendant's motion to alter or amend a judgment. 

Appellate Case: 87-2358 Document: 010110027485 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 1 
The record shows that on July 10, 1987, the district court entered 

judgment, which, inter alia, denied the award of attorney's fees 

to either party. Within the time allowed, defendant filed a 

motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 and 59 to alter or amend the 

judgment. It was defendant's position that as prevailing party, 

it was entitled under state law to the award of attorney's fees. 

On August 5, 1987, the district court granted defendant's motion 

and directed the parties to make a good faith effort to agree on 

the amount of fees due. On September 2, 1987, plaintiff filed 

notice of appeal from the August 5 order. Significantly, the 

August 5 order did not set out the amount of attorney's fees to be 

recovered. 

On October 26, 1987, the district court ordered that 

defendant recover from plaintiff the sum of $44,895.69 as a result 

of attorney's fees. No appeal is taken from that order. 

We conclude that the October 26, 1987, order was final and 

appealable within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and that the 

challenged order was interlocutory and, consequently, not 

immediately reviewable. 

This appeal, from an interlocutory order, is premature and 

must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

Appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-2358 Document: 010110027485 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 2