Opinion ID: 1600215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Failure of Blue Cross to Appeal or to File A Counter-Petition

Text: The majority, even though agreeing with me on what the petitioners call the sole issue, the exclusiveness of the jurisdiction of the federal district court, says in support of the grant of mandamus that the jurisdictional issue is not presented because the judgment of dismissal was not challenged in this Court. I recognize, of course, that the counter-petition for mandamus filed by Blue Cross could be considered insufficient to present the issue, but the burden is not on Blue Cross to show why the petitioners are not entitled to relief, it is upon petitioners to show why they are clearly entitled to the relief they seek. Petitioners, in my opinion, have not done that. They have not shown why they are entitled to the entire fund before Blue Cross's rights, if any, to the fund are determined. [7] The petitioner's argument, apparently accepted by the majority, is that Blue Cross should have appealed the order of the trial judge dismissing its subrogation claim. That argument has no legal merit, because the order of dismissal affected only Blue Cross's claim, which was only one claim in the interpleader action; therefore, it was not a final order from which an appeal would lie, unless it had been certified as provided for in Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ.P. Even the petitioners recognize that there has been no final order in the interpleader action, because they are using mandamus, which obviously would not be available if there was a right of appeal on their part.