Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-08-03221/USCOURTS-ca10-08-03221-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 2, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DAVE SHELDON; DARREN K.

KEARNS, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

v. 

NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANK;

FORCHELLI, CURTO, SCHWARTZ,

MINEO, CARLINO & COHN, LLP;

JAMES CANTANNO, personally and

individually, 

 Defendants - Appellees, 

and 

TARA KHANAL; ABU B. ATHAR;

DAVID J. MELO, personally and

individually and as a firm;

NETWORK MORTGAGE, INC.;

SHAMS UDDIN, personally and

individually; OPTION ONE

MORTGAGE, CORP.; WINZONE

REALTY, INC.; JULIE S.C. WONG;

SWEENEY, GALLO, REICH &

BOLZ, LLP; ROSEMARIE A. KLIE,

personally and individually, 

Defendants.

08-3221

(D.C. No. 2:07-CV-02112-KHV)

(D. of Kansas)

ORDER

Appellate Case: 08-3221 Document: 01016328772 Date Filed: 10/02/2008 Page: 1
2

Before LUCERO, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because no final or appealable

order has been entered by the district court. None of the orders being appealed is

immediately appealable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Boughton v. Cotter Corp., 10

F.3d 746, 748 (10th Cir. 1993) (pretrial discovery orders are generally not final or

otherwise immediately appealable); Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. McGlamery,

74 F.3d 218, 221-22 (10th Cir. 1996) (a transfer order based on lack of personal

jurisdiction and improper venue was not immediately appealable). See also McCall

v. Deeds, 849 F.2d 1259 (9th Cir. 1988) (the denial of certification under Rule 54(b)

is not appealable); Makuc v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 692 F.2d 172, 173-74

(1st Cir. 1982) (same). 

This court has jurisdiction to review only final decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and specific types of interlocutory orders not applicable here. A final decision is one

that “‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but

execute the judgment.’” Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198, 204 (1999)

(quoting Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 521-22 (1988)). 

The plaintiffs’ motion for stay is DENIED. The defendant’s request for

attorney fees and costs is also DENIED.

Appellate Case: 08-3221 Document: 01016328772 Date Filed: 10/02/2008 Page: 2
3

Appeal DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Ellen Rich Reiter

Deputy Clerk/Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 08-3221 Document: 01016328772 Date Filed: 10/02/2008 Page: 3