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

_______________

BLACK FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. OF DALLAS, TEXAS; WALTER DUNAGIN;

PATRICK FARRIS; SHAWN GARY; JAMES HILL, II; EDDIE JONES;

GEORGE FLORENCE; BILLY KELLY; ELIZABETH HILTON; JOHN ROGERS;

JAMES HUNTER, SR.; JOHN SIMIEN; BILLY INGRAM; ERVIN JACKSON;

TIFFANY TAYLOR; ALVIN SAMPLES; MICHAEL KUYKENDALL; MACKIE REESE;

JACQUELINE SMITH; HELEN WATTS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS; FIRE CHIEF STEVE ABRAIRA,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas 

m 03:06-CV-1421

______________________________
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Plaintiffs, the Black Firefighters Association, Inc. of Dallas and several individual Hispanic firefighters, filed a civil rights class action in state court alleging racially discriminatory employment practices. Defendants, the

City of Dallas and Fire Chief Steve Abraira,

timely filed a motion to remove to federal

court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) based

on federal question jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs moved to remand,

which was denied. Plaintiffs then filed a notice

of interlocutory appeal of their denied motion

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1).

This court lacksjurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal. A motion denying remand is

not a final judgment subject to review under

28 U.S.C. § 1291,1nor is it a collateral order

that might be reviewable under theCohen doctrine.2

Plaintiffs maintain that we have been granted jurisdiction over their appeal through a provision of the Class Action Fairness 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 that notwithstanding section 1447(d), a court of

appealsmay accept an appealfroman order

of a district court granting or denying a

motion to remand a class action to the

State court from which it was removed if

application is made to the court of appeals

not lessthan 7 days after entry of the order.

This grant of appellate jurisdiction, by its own

terms, applies only to removals under

§ 1453(b) and not to removals under § 1441.

Even if plaintiffs could avail themselves of this

section, they did not file the required petition

for permission to appeal under FederalRule of

Appellate Procedure 5. See Patterson v. Dean

Morris, LLP, 444 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir.

2006).3

The appeal is DISMISSED for want of

jurisdiction.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. 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

complied with any provision of Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 21(a).