Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01961/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01961-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ashland
Appellee
Robert Carter
Appellant
John Jennex
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1961

___________

Robert Carter, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Ashland, Inc.; John Jennex, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 30, 2006

Filed: June 15, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Carter brought this Title VII employment-discrimination action against

his former employer, Ashland, Inc., alleging he was terminated and was not rehired

because of his race (African-American). During discovery, Carter produced two

witness statements from former Ashland employees, and a dispute ensued as to

whether the two statements contained the witnesses’ genuine signatures. After a

hearing, the district court*

 found the signatures on the submitted statements were not

genuine and the statements thus were fraudulent. In a written order, the district court

Appellate Case: 04-1961 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2006 Entry ID: 2056849
-2-

dismissed the complaint with prejudice as a sanction for Carter’s fraud on the court,

and decreed defendants “shall recover” their costs and attorney’s fees as “a further

sanction.” Defendants then moved for specified attorney’s fees and costs. While their

motion was pending, Carter filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal order, before

the court had decided the dollar amount of this additional sanction. 

Although the issue is not raised by the parties, we must determine whether we

have jurisdiction over this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (appeals courts have

jurisdiction of appeals from final district court decisions); Dieser v. Cont’l Cas. Co.,

440 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (even if conceded by parties, jurisdictional issues

will be raised sua sponte by court when there is indication jurisdiction is lacking). In

our circuit, a sanctions order reserving the determination of the amount of sanctions

is not yet final. See, e.g., Lee v. L.B. Sales, Inc., 177 F.3d 714, 717-18 (8th Cir. 1999)

(order awarding sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for “plaintiffs’ unreasonable and

vexatious conduct,” but reserving determination of amount of sanctions, was not

appealable until entry of order fixing amount). A notice of appeal filed prematurely

can be saved by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(2) (notice of appeal filed

after court announces order--but before entry of judgment or order--is treated as filed

on date of and after entry), but “only when a district court announces a decision that

would be appealable if immediately followed by the entry of judgment,” FirsTier

Mortgage Co. v. Investors Mortgage Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269, 274-76 (1991). We

conclude Rule 4(a)(2) does not save the instant notice of appeal filed prematurely

from the dismissal order, because the order “left unresolved” the amount of attorney’s

fees and costs. See Dieser, 440 F.3d at 924-25 (holding Rule 4(a)(2) did not save

notice of appeal filed from district court orders which “left unresolved” amount of

statutory penalties, prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees, and costs and which called

for further submissions from parties to determine those amounts, as those orders

“could not reasonably be believed to be final”). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1961 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2006 Entry ID: 2056849