Case Name: Samuel E. HEBERT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, TEXAS CITY, TEXAS, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1978-09-18
Citations: 580 F.2d 178
Docket Number: No. 76-2836
Parties: Samuel E. HEBERT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, TEXAS CITY, TEXAS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MORGAN and GEE, Circuit Judges, and KING, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 580
Pages: 178–179

Head Matter:
Samuel E. HEBERT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, TEXAS CITY, TEXAS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 76-2836.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 18, 1978.
Henry M. Rosenblum, Robert B. O’Keefe, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Wm. N. Wheat, Houston, Tex., for TX. Metal Trades.
Tom M. Davis, Houston, Tex., for Monsanto Co.
District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Before MORGAN and GEE, Circuit Judges, and KING, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
In Hebert v. Monsanto Co., Texas City, Texas, 576 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1978), we entertained an appeal brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) of an interlocutory order denying class action certification. Subsequently, the Supreme Court held that such orders are not appealable. Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.,-U.S.-, 98 S.Ct. 2451, 57 L.Ed.2d 364 (1978). These cases are substantially similar; both present a plaintiff seeking inter alia injunctive relief for himself and an alleged class of victims of employment discrimination. In Gardner, the Court held that § 1292(a)(1) does not grant jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from an order dénying class certification. "A holding that such an order falls within § 1292(a)(1) would compromise 'the integrity of the congressional policy against piecemeal appeals.' " -U.S. at-, 98 S.Ct. at 2454. In light of the Court's ruling, we vacate our opinion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Dismissed.