Task: songer_othappth

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to some threshold issue at the appeals court level. That is, it is conceded that the trial court properly reached the merits, but the issue is whether, in spite of that concession, the appellant has a right to an appeals court decision on the merits (e.g., the issue became moot after the trial).  The issue is: "Did the court refuse to rule on the merits of the appeal because of some threshhold issue other than timeliness or frivolousness that was relevant on appeal but not at the original trial? (e.g., the case became moot after the original trial)" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge.
Thomas S. Streetman (Trustee), appellant and trustee of Herbert E. Russell’s (Russell) bankruptcy estate, appeals from the district court’s dismissal, of Count V of appellant’s amended complaint, for failure to state a claim. Count V sought punitive damages from Russell for his fraudulent concealment of estate assets. The order appealed from is not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), nor is it appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Accordingly, we hold that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and we dismiss this appeal.
I. BACKGROUND
Trustee filed this action on June 11, 1990 seeking recovery of sums of money that Russell owed to the estate and revocation of Russell’s discharge in bankruptcy for failure to comply with the settlement agreement and fraudulent concealment of estate assets by Russell. On November 23, 1990, Russell filed a motion to dismiss, which included a request for a jury trial. After the bankruptcy court certified the case to the district court to determine whether Russell was entitled to a jury trial, Trustee filed a motion to remand, asserting that no jury trial issue existed. Trustee then filed an amended complaint adding Count V, which sought punitive damages for the fraudulent concealment. Russell filed a motion to dismiss. In a memorandum opinion and order dated May 23, 1991, the district court granted the motion to dismiss, only as to Count V, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, reasoning that the bankruptcy code does not provide for punitive damages under these circumstances and that Trustee had failed to raise any other grounds upon which jurisdiction could be based. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Trustee then filed this timely appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
This court has a duty to examine its jurisdiction, and may do so on its own motion if necessary. 8th Cir. Rule 47A(a). See Faysound Ltd. v. Falcon Jet Corp., 940 F.2d 339, 341 n. 2 (8th Cir.1991). We are obligated to dismiss an appeal if it is not within our jurisdiction. Id.
The courts of appeals have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of the district courts of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court’s dismissal of Count V for failure to state a claim does not constitute a final judgment on the merits of the entire lawsuit; nor did the district court enter a Rule 54(b) order directing the entry of final judgment as to that count. Id. Thus, the dismissal is not appealable as a final order.
The. collateral order doctrine, first announced in Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), represents a narrow exception to the final judgment rule of section 1291. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 374, 101 S.Ct. 669, 673, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981). The Eighth Circuit recognizes this exception to the extent that the order appealed from affects “ ‘rights that will be irretrievably lost in the absence of an immediate appeal.’ ” United States v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 785 F.2d 206, 210 (8th Cir.1985) (quoting Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 431, 105 S.Ct. 2757, 2761, 86 L.Ed.2d 340 (1985)). The district court order must also “ ‘conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.’ ” Id. (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2458, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978)).
The requested remedy of punitive damages, contained in Count V, will not be irretrievably lost if its dismissal is not immediately appealable. Moreover, the claim for punitive damages is not separable from and collateral to the common law fraud claim in the remainder of the case. The common law fraud claim may be defeated, mooting out the punitive damages claim. Appellate consideration should be deferred until the rest of the case is adjudicated before the bankruptcy court.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
. The Hon. Oren Harris, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

Question: Did the court refuse to rule on the merits of the appeal because of some threshhold issue other than timeliness or frivolousness that was relevant on appeal but not at the original trial?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: B