Opinion ID: 1041795
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: bony

Text: Finally, we note that, despite its lack of involvement before the district court, BONY has filed a brief before this Court, requesting that the dismissal 7 Case: 13-50407 Document: 00512382457 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 No. 13-50407 below be affirmed. Based on our review of the record, BONY was not a party to the action when the district court dismissed the suit. See Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Tullos-Pierremont, 894 F.2d 1469, 1472 (5th Cir. 1990) (“[S]ince no service was obtained on [the defendant], nor did it make an appearance in the district court, [that defendant] never became a party to the plaintiff’s suit.”) (quoting Nagle v. Lee, 807 F.2d 435, 438 (5th Cir. 1987)). See also Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Dealy, 911 F.2d 1096, 1099 (5th Cir. 1990) (“Because [the defendant] was never properly before the district court it did not have the requisite competence to render a judgment against her.”). Consequently, we conclude that there has not been a final decision involving BONY from which we can derive jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (“The courts of appeals . . . shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.”). Accordingly, we refrain from reaching any of Hudson’s claims against BONY herein as we have no jurisdiction over those claims.7