Case Name: Ralph A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hayes McDOLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1976-02-02
Citations: 526 F.2d 710
Docket Number: No. 75-3724
Parties: Ralph A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hayes McDOLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 526
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
Ralph A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hayes McDOLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 75-3724
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. .
Feb. 2, 1976.
Roland J. Aehee, Shreveport, La., for defendant-appellant.
Sydney B. Nelson, Shreveport, La., Frederick L. Hilger, Eureka, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Johnson seeks enforcement of a California judgment against McDole. McDole challenges the jurisdiction of the California court. The district court held the California judgment valid, but stayed execution until a counterclaim by McDole against Johnson for breach of a contract factually related to the California judgment could be heard and determined. As far as the record shows, the merits of the counterclaim have not yet been considered.
Although the issue has not been raised by the parties, we conclude that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain this case. The claim of Johnson and the counterclaim of McDole constitute multiple claims within the meaning of Fed.R. Civ.P. 54(b). A decision on one of the claims does not constitute a final appeal-able order unless the district court makes "an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). No such entry or determination has been made by the district court. Hence, the judgment lacks the requisite finality to be appealable within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. Anderson v. Robinson, 5 Cir. 1974, 494 F.2d 45; Luckett v. Spivy, 5 Cir. 1974, 490 F.2d 87; United States v. Crow, Pope and Land Enterprises, Inc., 5 Cir. 1973, 474 F.2d 200; Coulter v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 1189; Tompkins Motor Lines v. Georgia Broilers, Inc., 5 Cir. 1958, 260 F.2d 830.
Appeal dismissed.