Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30560 V IK T O R K H A L IM S KY ; FA IN AL U S H T A K , P l ai n t i f fs - A pp el l an t s v. L IB E R T YM U T U A L F IR E IN S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , D efen da n t- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he Eas t e r n Di s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana U SD C N o. 2: 07- C V
- 8959 B ef ore K IN G , JO L L Y , an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Pl ai nt i f fs–A ppel l ant s appealt he di st r i c tc our t ’ s or derent ered A pril13, 20 09 , g r ant i ng s um m ar y j udg m e nti n fav o ro f D e fe nda nt–Appe l l e e o n t he A p p ell a n ts’m ed i ca lex p en ses an dl oss of i n com e claim s. T h e p a rti es b rou gh t a j oi ntm ot i on f

or l ea ve t o f

i l e a n i nt er l oc ut or y appe aland a j oi ntm ot i on t o s t ay t r i alpendi ng appeal . O n J u n e 1 8, 2009, t he di st r i c tc our ts t ayed pro c ee di ngs and gr ant ed t he m ot i on t o c er t i f y t he s um m ar y j udgm entorde ras i nt er l oc ut or y. A ppel l ant s f

i l ed t hei rnot i c e o f

appealon June 2 6, 2009. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 10, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-30560 Document: 00511024540 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2010N o. 09- 30560

2 H ow ev er, A p p e lla n ts did n ot f i l e th e req u i sit e p eti ti on f or p erm i ssion to a p p ea lw i th i n ten da ys after th e § 12 9 2 (b) ord er w a s f i l ed i n the distri ct cou rt, andAppe l l ant s s t i l lha ve no tf i l e d s uc h ape t i t i o n. 28 U . S. C. § 1 29 2(b) ( “ The C our tof A ppeal s w hi c h w oul d h ave j uri sdi c t i on of an appealof

s uch ac t i on m ay th e reu p on , i n i ts d i scre ti on , p erm i t a n a p p ea l to b e t a k en from su ch ord e r , if a p p lic a tio n is m a d e to it w ith in t e n d a y s a fte rt h e e n tr yo f th e o r d e r [.]”) ; F ED . R. A PP . P. 5( a) ( 1) ( “ To r e que s tpe r m i s s i o n t o a ppe alw he n a n a ppe ali s w i t hi n t he cou rt of ap p ea l s’dis c r e tion , a p a rty m u st f i l e a pe ti ti on f

or p erm i ssion to ap pea l . ” ) . “A s a c ou rto f l i m i t ed j u ri sdi ct i on , w e m u stnote an ab sence of j u ri sd i cti on , ev en if n ot u rg ed bythe pa rti es.” A u coi n v. Matad or Serv s. , I n c. , 7 4 9 F .2 d1 1 8 0 , 1 1 8 1 (5 t h C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). “S p e c ific a lly , in th e a b s e n c e o f a tim e ly requ estf

or perm i ssive ap pea lun der F ED . R. A PP . P . 5 (a), w e lack j u ri sd i cti on to con sidergra n ti n g a discretion a ryap p ea l . ” I d. “ T h e peti t i on [f

or app ealun der Rul e 5 ( a) ] i s a n i m po r t antc o m pl e m e ntt o a pr o c e dur e de s i gne d t o a ns w e rt he ques t i on o f

w het heran i m m ediat e a p p ea lw i l lm a terial l y a d va n ce th e u l ti m a te term i n a ti on of th e li ti ga ti on . ” Id . H ere , the n oti ce of ap p ea lf i l ed i n the distri ct c o u rt i s n ot an ad eq u a te r e que s tund e rRul e 5 ( a) be c aus e i tdo e s no tc o nt ai n as t at e m e nto f r e as o ns w hy th e cou rt sh ou l dall ow the a p p ea l , a n dit “do es n ot ti m ely i n form the ap p ell a te cou rt i n a m a n n er w h i ch all ow s i t pro m p tl y to re sp on d . ” Id . T h e r e f o r e , we D IS M IS S th is a p p e a l fo rla c k o f a p p e lla te ju r is d ic tio n . Id . DI S M I S S ED . Case: 09-30560 Document: 00511024540 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2010