Case Name: JORGENSEN BROS., Appellant, v. COMMERCE-PACIFIC, INC., Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1961-07-10
Citations: 294 F.2d 768
Docket Number: No. 17014
Parties: JORGENSEN BROS., Appellant, v. COMMERCE-PACIFIC, INC., Appellee.
Judges: Before CHAMBERS and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges, and BOWEN, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 294
Pages: 768–770

Head Matter:
JORGENSEN BROS., Appellant, v. COMMERCE-PACIFIC, INC., Appellee.
No. 17014.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
July 10, 1961.
Townsend & Townsend, Stephen S. Townsend, Charles E. Townsend, Jr., and James B. Gambrell, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
George Bouchard, El Cajon, Cal., and Richard A. Perkins, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges, and BOWEN, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed without prejudice.
The basic claim of Denison-Johnson, Inc., as plaintiff against Jorgensen Bros, and others, presumably is still pending in the district court. The Jorgensens' counterclaim against Commerce-Pacific and the plaintiff Denison-Johnson has been dismissed as to Commerce-Pacific on the ground of improper venue. (The pleading so far as it concerns Commerce-Pacific would be more properly denominated a cross-claim. Likewise, Commerce-Pacific should be considered a third party defendant.)
No order under § 54(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., has been entered. And our case of Steiner v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, 9 Cir., 220 F.2d 105, would negate the propriety of such an order here.
Appellant can claim no right for a permissive interlocutory appeal, if such were appropriate, because the necessary orders of the district court and this court are absent, 28 U.S.C. 1292(b).
But appellant claims a right to be here under the collateral order doctrine and because the "counterclaim" had a prayer for a temporary and for a permanent injunction. 28 U.S.C. 1292(a).
In our view, Baltimore Contractors, Inc., v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176, 75 S.Ct. 249, 99 L.Ed. 233, is applicable here. Although there is a difference in the facts, the principles there restated seem to apply.
CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge, and BOWEN, District Judge, concur in the foregoing per curiam.