Case Name: GOLDLAWR, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marcus HEIMAN, Select Operating Corporation and United Booking Office, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Milton Shubert, William Klein and Sylvia W. Golde, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1959-12-29
Citations: 273 F.2d 729
Docket Number: Nos. 25964, 25965
Parties: GOLDLAWR, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marcus HEIMAN, Select Operating Corporation and United Booking Office, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Milton Shubert, William Klein and Sylvia W. Golde, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 273
Pages: 729–731

Head Matter:
GOLDLAWR, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marcus HEIMAN, Select Operating Corporation and United Booking Office, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Milton Shubert, William Klein and Sylvia W. Golde, Defendants.
Nos. 25964, 25965.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Motions Argued Doc. 7, 1959.
Dec. 29, 1959
Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1960.
Gerald Schoenfeld and Bernard B. Jacobs, New York City, for defendant-appellee Select Operating Corp.
Gerald Schoenfeld and Bernard B. Jacobs, and Lipper, Shinn & Keeley, New York City, for defendant-appellee, United Booking Office, Inc. (C. Russell Phillips and Hugh G. Moulton (of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads), Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel for above two defendants-appellees).
_. ^ . 0 i , Lipper, Shinn & Keeley New York City, for defendant-appellee Morgan Guaranty Trust Co and Asher Levy, Executors of the Estate of Marcus Heiman, deceased.
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, New York City (Harold E. Kohn and Dolores Korman of Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, Kohn & Dilks, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and SWAN and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges,

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The amended complaint against six defendants alleges a conspiracy to violate the anti-trust laws and damage caused! thereby to the plaintiff in the operation; of the Erlanger Theatre in Philadelphia, It prays for a judgment against all the-defendants in the amount of $1,050,000' to be trebled in accordance with the-Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 15, together-with costs and an attorney's fee, and for an injunction. As against three of the-defendants, the appellees, the action was-, dismissed for lack of personal jurisdietion. The action remained pending-against the others. The judgment of' dismissal contained a direction, such as-, is provided for by amended Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,. 28 U.S.C.A., that there was no just reason for delay and that judgment be en~ tered in favor of the three defendants. Thereupon plaintiff filed timely notice of appeal. Amended Rule 54(b) expressly deals with multiple claims; consequent-the weiSht of authority has held that m situations involving multiple parties-. but only a single claim, a 54(b) certificate-is ineffective to make appealable a judgment dismissing the action against some-Parties but leavin& it; Pending against other Some decisions in the Second Circuit appear to have taken a contrary yiew Lopinsky v. Hertz Drive-Ur-Self 2 Cir., 1951, 194 F.2d 422;: Colonial Airlines y Janas 2 Cir., 1953; 202 F.2d 914; Rao v. Port of New York Authority, 2 Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d 362,. and United Artists Corp. v. Masterpiece-Prodiuctions, Inc., 2 Cir., 1955, 221 F.2d. 213. On further consideration we have concluded that the Fifth, the Eighth,, the Ninth and, as we read its opinions,. the Seventh Circuit have been correct in. thinking that amended Rule 54(b) does. not allow a finding of finality in the ease here presented where a single claim against multiple parties is dismissed as against some but not all. In conse qu.ence we must dismiss the appeals for want of appellate jurisdiction.
Appeals dismissed.
. Steiner v. 20th Century Fox Film Corp., 9 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 105; Nettles v. General Accident Fire and Life Assuranee Corp., 5 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 243; Brandt v. Renfield Importers, Ltd., 8 Cir., 1959, 269 F.2d 14. The Seventh Circuit indicated its agreement with this view in Hardy v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 7 Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d 827, although in that case no Buie 54(b) certificate had in fact been made; we do not read Morgan Drive Away, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 7 Cir., 1959, 268 F.2d 871, as taking a different view. See also 6 Moore, Federal Practice § 54.34 [2].