United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 20, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

_______________


### m 06-11250 Summary Calendar

_______________



### B LACK 

### FIRE 

### FIGHTERS 

### A SSOCIATION 

### , I NC



### . OF 

### D ALLAS 

### , T EXAS 

### ; W ALTER 

### D UNAGIN 

### ; P AT RICK 

### FARRIS 

### ; S HAWN 

### G ARY 

### ; J AMES 

### H ILL 

### , II; E DDIE 

### J ONES 

### ; G EORGE 

### F

LORENCE 

### ; B ILLY 

### K

ELLY 

### ; ELIZABETH 

### H ILTON 

### ; J OHN 

### R OGERS 

### ; J AMES 

### HUNTER 

### , S R 

### .; J OHN 

### S IMIEN 

### ; B ILLY 

### I NGRAM 

### ; E RVIN 

### J ACKSON 

### ; T IFFANY 

### T AYLOR 

### ; ALVIN 

### S AMPLES 

### ; M ICHAEL 

### K UYKENDALL 

### ; M ACKIE 

### R EESE 

### ; J ACQUELINE 

### S MITH 

### ; HELEN 

### W AT TS 

### , Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS


### C ITY OF 

### D ALLAS 

### , T EXAS 

### ; FIRE 

### C HIEF 

### S TEVE 

### ABRAIRA 

### , Defendants-Appellees.



## _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas 

### m 03:06-CV-1421



## ______________________________Before S MITH , WIENER , and O WEN ,

Circuit Judges.
P ER C URIAM : *
Plaint iffs, the Black Firefighters Asso ciation, Inc. of Dallas and several individual Hispanic fir e fight ers, filed a civil rights class action in st ate court alleging racially discriminatory employment p ractices. Defendants, the Cit y of Dallas and Fire Chief Steve Abraira, timely filed a mo tion to remove to f ederal court pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 1441(b) based on federal question juri sdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 13 31. Pl aint iffs mo ved to remand, which was denied. Plaint iffs t hen filed a notice of int erlocutory appeal of their denied motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1).
This court lacks jurisdiction over the int erlo cutory appeal. A mo tion denying remand is not a final judgment subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 1 nor is it a collat eral order th at might be reviewable under the Cohen doctrine. 2
Plaint iffs maint ain th at we have been granted jurisdiction over their appeal th rough a provisio n of the Class Action Fai rness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1). That section provides:
Section 1447 shall apply to any removal of a case under this section, except th at n otwit hstanding sec ti on 1447(d), a court of appeals may accept an appeal from an order of a di stri ct court granting or denying a mo tion to remand a class action to the State court from which it was removed if application is made to the court of appeals not less th an 7 days aft er entry of the order.
This grant of appellate jurisdiction, by it s own terms, applies only to removal s under § 1453(b) and not to removals under § 1441. Even if plaint iffs could avail themselves of this section, they did not file the required peti tion fo r permission to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5. S ee Patterson v. Dean M orris, LLP , 444 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 2006). 3
The appeal is DISM ISSED f or want of jurisdiction.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be publishedand is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

1 See Lewis v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. , 183 F.2d 29, 31 (5th Cir. 1950); Mo. Pac. Ry. v. Fitzgerald , 160 U.S. 556, 582 (1896).

2 See Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 546; see, e.g. , Rohrer, Hibler, & Replogle, Inc. v. Perkins , 728 F.2d 860, 862 (7th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). 3 Plaintiffs’ attempt to reclassify their appeal as a mandamus petition similarly fails; they have not compli ed with any provision of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21(a).